Santorum Drops Out

[Vash02]

Sterling malorn, sterling. $99.2 billion in dollars.

I'm not saying the UK education system is perfect (too much political meddling) or that the US system is worse. But that access to higher education is easier for people from poor backgrounds.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

That NYT article cites Finland as one of the best countires.

According to Wikipedia Finland spends about 2750 (in dollars) per capita on education.

The US spends 3240 per capita

So we spend more and get less (according to the article's analysis, but I take NYT articles with a grain of salt).

Clearly throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, which any intelligent person would already know.

No, which means there's also a good possibility that there's a difference in system.

http://www.fdupillar.com/?p=196

As this article suggests, the pacing in the US is slower. That corresponds to what classmates of mine (who did their final year in the US) said: when they took the last year of high school in the US, it was three years behind our own class - the only new thing they learned was Spanish, since it was the only thing they never had taken (wasn't taught at our school, though some other schools have Spanish, Russian and Chinese as optional langauges).

Another thing is that it suggests the US system is very inwards oriented (US focused), which means knowledge of the outside world is poor, whereas in pretty much all other high ranking countries, a much wider perspective is given.




If you once again excuse the comparison with the Netherlands, our school system is focused on seperating students by performance levels on the previous school. To get into a specific higher level school, college or university, your grades have to match requirements.

This means that not everyone of the same age attends the same schools and classes, but rather they're grouped together so they can be taught by the same teacher on the same level and a different focus, without having to wait for those further behind to catch up. Pacing between the different schools differs greatly. What some schools do in 4-6 years, others do in three and then have 3 more years of advanced classes. Someone who is a bit slower learner can progress and advance from a lower class through the different schools if they meet requirements.

As I understand it, in the US it is the opposite in public schools, where everyone gets the same level of education, regardless of personal performance.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

I like how the wikipedia article mentions this:

Indeed it does. Hence why simply looking at the total production is not a really good indication of wealth. If you look further, it also states in a related article:

Standard of living and GDP

GDP per capita is not a measurement of the standard of living in an economy. However, it is often used as such an indicator, on the rationale that all citizens would benefit from their country's increased economic production. Similarly, GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income. GDP may increase while real incomes for the majority decline. The major advantage of GDP per capita as an indicator of standard of living is that it is measured frequently, widely, and consistently. It is measured frequently in that most countries provide information on GDP on a quarterly basis, allowing trends to be seen quickly. It is measured widely in that some measure of GDP is available for almost every country in the world, allowing inter-country comparisons. It is measured consistently in that the technical definition of GDP is relatively consistent among countries.

The major disadvantage is that it is not a measure of standard of living. GDP is intended to be a measure of total national economic activity—a separate concept.

The argument for using GDP as a standard-of-living proxy is not that it is a good indicator of the absolute level of standard of living, but that living standards tend to move with per-capita GDP, so that changes in living standards are readily detected through changes in GDP.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

It's a tricky thing to use in general, simply saying "richest country in the world" doesn't really tell the whole story.

I mean, if we look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

What does that say about the Chinese if you DON'T look at it on a per capita basis? (If not taking into account the EU as a whole, where the US goes from #1 nominal to 15 per capita, China goes from #2 nominal to #92 per capita! HUGE difference!). Without a doubt the US is the biggest consumer economy in the world, but to say that means it is the wealthiest or best overall is cutting corners everywhere.

[HalfManHalfGod]

Originally Posted by Figment

No, which means there's also a good possibility that there's a difference in system.

http://www.fdupillar.com/?p=196

As this article suggests, the pacing in the US is slower. That corresponds to what classmates of mine (who did their final year in the US) said: when they took the last year of high school in the US, it was three years behind our own class - the only new thing they learned was Spanish, since it was the only thing they never had taken (wasn't taught at our school, though some other schools have Spanish, Russian and Chinese as optional langauges).

Another thing is that it suggests the US system is very inwards oriented (US focused), which means knowledge of the outside world is poor, whereas in pretty much all other high ranking countries, a much wider perspective is given.




If you once again excuse the comparison with the Netherlands, our school system is focused on seperating students by performance levels on the previous school. To get into a specific higher level school, college or university, your grades have to match requirements.

This means that not everyone of the same age attends the same schools and classes, but rather they're grouped together so they can be taught by the same teacher on the same level and a different focus, without having to wait for those further behind to catch up. Pacing between the different schools differs greatly. What some schools do in 4-6 years, others do in three and then have 3 more years of advanced classes. Someone who is a bit slower learner can progress and advance from a lower class through the different schools if they meet requirements.

As I understand it, in the US it is the opposite in public schools, where everyone gets the same level of education, regardless of personal performance.

What you're referring to is called "tracking" in the US. Mostly its based off standardized tests administered. If you do really well you are tracked up higher where generally the better performing teachers are. If you do not so well you are tracked lower and placed in classes that designed to play catch-up but generally have lower performing teachers.

The bad thing with our public teachers union is that they are not paid based off performance in the classroom. In DC a public school reformist gave the union the opportunity to have wages as high 140kUSD but they had to give up tenure which basically means you can't be fired, ever. The union never let it come up for a vote to its members.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Quality of teachers is definitely important. Not being allowed to be fired based on poor performance seems a rather awkward rule. :/



Btw, you say that tracking is similar, but does it mean that you get a wider curriculum if you are performing well, or just the same curriculum, faster?

EDIT: Just saw Malorn's post in between, missed that one. Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the issue of race card being played exists, but then it would probably also show the Asians would perform best due to cultural pushing by parents.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Also depends of course what the money is invested in and how.


Could be that you spend more money for instance on university research projects (to name just one thing that costs a lot of money) or have more costly staff (more competition between universities for best staff?). What does a professor earn on average in the US?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Malorn I find this quite unsettling, are we agreeing on something here? :x

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Oh right, I forgot there's a country in the EU that didn't adopt the EU's currency. I'm an American, I don't easily recognize foreign currency because I never need to use it.

It doesn't change much. 7880 per student - US still spends over 50% more on education per-student.

8478 per student and its 40.6% more. It would be great to spend more on education but the current government is penny pinching due to the moron bankers.

There's plenty of financial aid options in the US for people from poor backgrounds. They're grants, scholarships, and loans with really good rates. Hell they have an easier time than middle-class people (because they don't qualify for most of those).

In the US the best way you can get an education is to be a poor minority - everything is paid for you. White middle class is the one that usually has to take out the loans.

But there is no standard method of everyone getting an equal opportunity to get further education. They have to rely on their parents, beg for scholarships/loans or self fund their education by getting a job and that impacts academic score because your working and not studying.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Unless it just falls behind and isn't lapped twice a day!