Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Practical Salinity Units
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-04-18, 11:54 AM | [Ignore Me] #151 | ||
Major
|
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. |
||
|
2012-04-18, 12:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #152 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 12:20 PM | [Ignore Me] #153 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
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:
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. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 12:20 PM | [Ignore Me] #154 | |||
Private
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 12:36 PM | [Ignore Me] #157 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
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. Last edited by Figment; 2012-04-18 at 12:45 PM. |
||
|
2012-04-18, 01:04 PM | [Ignore Me] #159 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
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? |
||
|
2012-04-18, 01:22 PM | [Ignore Me] #162 | ||||
Major
|
|
||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|