US adults score below average on worldwide test(news.yahoo.com)
news.yahoo.com
US adults score below average on worldwide test
http://news.yahoo.com/us-adults-score-below-average-worldwide-test-090114407.html
14 comments
> compared to Western Europe it doesn't have a very high number of immigrants.
This is true. America has an immigrant population of about the same size as Germany or Sweden (at about 12-13% of the population).
> Or does the American definition of 'diversity' only refer to the number of black people? In that case, blaming their numbers for lower test scores is kind of ... racist, isn't it?
I believe that is the main demographic difference between western Europe and America. We do not have a large population of former salves who historically have suffered heavy discrimination. Pointing out the results of historical (and current) racism is not racist.
This is true. America has an immigrant population of about the same size as Germany or Sweden (at about 12-13% of the population).
> Or does the American definition of 'diversity' only refer to the number of black people? In that case, blaming their numbers for lower test scores is kind of ... racist, isn't it?
I believe that is the main demographic difference between western Europe and America. We do not have a large population of former salves who historically have suffered heavy discrimination. Pointing out the results of historical (and current) racism is not racist.
It is racist if the meaning is "we'd be scoring fine if it wasn't for them dragging us down with their genetic inferiority about which nothing can be done" rather than taken as a reason for improving schooling for the poor and otherwise disadvantaged.
and compared to Western Europe it doesn't have a very high number of immigrants.
I suppose if you mean "people who've immigrated within the past two generations". Because, um, historically the US is where Western Europeans immigrated to.
I suppose if you mean "people who've immigrated within the past two generations". Because, um, historically the US is where Western Europeans immigrated to.
And on a longer scale Europe is where people from the Middle East immigrated to.
And on an even longer scale the rest of the world is where black Africans from the centre of Africa immigrated to.
> The findings were equally grim for many European countries — Italy and Spain, among the hardest hit by the recession and debt crisis, ranked at the bottom across generations. Unemployment is well over 25 percent in Spain and over 12 percent in Italy. Spain has drastically cut education spending, drawing student street protests.
I'm not sure what they are getting at here. High unemployment, being hard hit by the recession and debt crisis, and recently cutting education would not affect adult reading, math, and problem solving skills, so I don't think they are offering those as an explanation for those countries doing poorly on these tests.
Are they implying that because Spanish and Italian results are not as good as their neighbors they were not as capable as handling the recession and debt crisis, and so were hit harder?
I'm not sure what they are getting at here. High unemployment, being hard hit by the recession and debt crisis, and recently cutting education would not affect adult reading, math, and problem solving skills, so I don't think they are offering those as an explanation for those countries doing poorly on these tests.
Are they implying that because Spanish and Italian results are not as good as their neighbors they were not as capable as handling the recession and debt crisis, and so were hit harder?
I think what they imply is that a less prepared population leads to worse economic results (especially during a recession). Recent cuts for sure don't affect current scores, but they are an indication that things aren't likely to improve in the future - they could even get worse.
I'll add that a less acculturated population doesn't just offer a worse workforce, but is also likely to choose a worse political class. This is very visible here in Italy.
I'll add that a less acculturated population doesn't just offer a worse workforce, but is also likely to choose a worse political class. This is very visible here in Italy.
Where you would find money to spend on books, time to spend on reading, when all you care about is how to get money not to starve?
"Where you would find money to spend on books, time to spend on reading, when all you care about is how to get money not to starve?"
Oh man, I am from Spain. I believe you need to get out of your country for a while.
There are few places in which I had seen more misery than in the US of America, India comes to mind. There some people live very well, the rest very bad.
Spain is somewhat a socialist country, you are paid for not working, with lots of subsidies, like PER or paro, education and healthcare for the poor are free. Also lots of taxes.
Spain exports food, there is plenty of it. If you are poor there are lots of rural places where you are given land free if you want to work it(as small villages get empty when population gets older).
In Spain(and Italy) family is much more important than in the US, so it has a wide social net.
Oh man, I am from Spain. I believe you need to get out of your country for a while.
There are few places in which I had seen more misery than in the US of America, India comes to mind. There some people live very well, the rest very bad.
Spain is somewhat a socialist country, you are paid for not working, with lots of subsidies, like PER or paro, education and healthcare for the poor are free. Also lots of taxes.
Spain exports food, there is plenty of it. If you are poor there are lots of rural places where you are given land free if you want to work it(as small villages get empty when population gets older).
In Spain(and Italy) family is much more important than in the US, so it has a wide social net.
Maybe you need to travel more around in your own country.
Not everyone has a family to fall on or gets the expected help from the social institutions.
I travel regularly in Spain and am aware of such situations.
Not everyone has a family to fall on or gets the expected help from the social institutions.
I travel regularly in Spain and am aware of such situations.
Yeah, but the recession is a fairly recent thing, while current adults received most of their education in the past decades.
Well speaking for Portugal, we have had education cuts since around 2000.
Unless you live in big cities, there are also not that many libraries to go to, or the possibility to connect to the Internet in a workable manner.
Sure, when one wants to learn, even with limited resources, they might try to. However, the majority just won't bother.
Unless you live in big cities, there are also not that many libraries to go to, or the possibility to connect to the Internet in a workable manner.
Sure, when one wants to learn, even with limited resources, they might try to. However, the majority just won't bother.
Yeah, I'm aware (fellow countryman here ;), but as far as I know Spain hasn't had our eternal crisis. In fact, I believe they had a decent surplus for a number of years.
The problem with Spain is that every time a new government is elected they decide to change the education system. And not for a better one. So there's no plan for the near future, and the investment of R&D is ridiculous and inefficient (half of the funds are never granted). The best of the best have to leave the country.
> It's long been known that America's school kids haven't measured well compared with international peers. Now, there's a new twist: Adults don't either.
That's not a twist. It's the exact same statement just 10 years later.
That's not a twist. It's the exact same statement just 10 years later.
The strength of an economy rarely depends on the education or knowledge of the masses.
Often it's just access to natural resources or the ability to get access by force. (otherwise I would have to assume that neolithic societies like those we find in Saudi Arabia or Qatar would have one of the best educated populations out there)
As long as the US is able to sustain its military apparatus and educate the top 1% well enough so they can innovate on technology they'll do fine.
It's not as if no one knew that US education for the masses is average at best, but it didn't matter in the last decades, and it probably wont matter in the future.
Often it's just access to natural resources or the ability to get access by force. (otherwise I would have to assume that neolithic societies like those we find in Saudi Arabia or Qatar would have one of the best educated populations out there)
As long as the US is able to sustain its military apparatus and educate the top 1% well enough so they can innovate on technology they'll do fine.
It's not as if no one knew that US education for the masses is average at best, but it didn't matter in the last decades, and it probably wont matter in the future.
You realize that the majority of Engineering Phds in the US are foreign born ? - the US heavily relies on being able to attract international talent to maintain its advantage.
"Its advantage". You (not ig1) can get away with this if you're a typical HN reader but ignoring the rules of grammar is not advised for those alluded to in the article. Mistakes like that are likely to merely compound your problems.
Sadly the rather smart folk who evidently inhabit these columns (and are meticulous when instructing their computers) sometimes don't set good examples for you. They really should, should they not?
Sadly the rather smart folk who evidently inhabit these columns (and are meticulous when instructing their computers) sometimes don't set good examples for you. They really should, should they not?
This doesn't contradict my statements, because I never denied that the US has one of the worlds best education for the top 1% which in turn makes it more desirable for foreign born students to study at MIT or Stanford.
Edit: And yes, you'll have more innovation if you can attract the brightest students, no matter in which country they happen to be born in.
Edit: And yes, you'll have more innovation if you can attract the brightest students, no matter in which country they happen to be born in.
It is unfortunately not that simple.
First of all, you won't just need a well-educated top 1% (I presume you mean top 1% in terms of innovation ability, not income). You also generally need a skilled workforce in order to implement what you've invented.
Second, it is arguable that the rising inequality in the US is incompatible with long-term economic growth. The economic growth in past decades has been powered not just by innovation: A lot has been due to families going from single to dual income households, working two jobs, and more recently, Americans using their homes as ATM machines.
America, at least for now, has a consumption-driven economy and for that you need consumers to be able to buy things. In order for that, they need sufficient income, and for that income, they have to be able to compete on the labor market. 99% of the labor force doing minimum wage jobs cannot drive an economy.
Worse, increasing technological innovation has eliminated low skill, minimum wage job, and driven a lot of them overseas. Technological innovation needs to be paired with skilled labor if you don't want to face a collapsing labor market down the road.
First of all, you won't just need a well-educated top 1% (I presume you mean top 1% in terms of innovation ability, not income). You also generally need a skilled workforce in order to implement what you've invented.
Second, it is arguable that the rising inequality in the US is incompatible with long-term economic growth. The economic growth in past decades has been powered not just by innovation: A lot has been due to families going from single to dual income households, working two jobs, and more recently, Americans using their homes as ATM machines.
America, at least for now, has a consumption-driven economy and for that you need consumers to be able to buy things. In order for that, they need sufficient income, and for that income, they have to be able to compete on the labor market. 99% of the labor force doing minimum wage jobs cannot drive an economy.
Worse, increasing technological innovation has eliminated low skill, minimum wage job, and driven a lot of them overseas. Technological innovation needs to be paired with skilled labor if you don't want to face a collapsing labor market down the road.
The strength of an economy rarely depends on the education or knowledge of the masses.
I specifically disagree, on the basis of trans-national comparisons. The newly independent former colonies that became independent during my childhood and the formerly backward surviving countries after World War II that became developed countries during my lifetime followed various development paths. All over the world, in a lot of pairings of countries with different cultural backgrounds and differing supplies of natural resources, by far the most successful national development strategy was broad education for the masses. Countries that invested education spending in well designed K-12 education for the whole national population had much higher sustained levels of economic growth (and much more success in democratization) than countries that invested equal spending per capita in subsidized national university education for a tiny elite minority. This contrast in national policies is one of the biggest differences between Africa (which had several countries as rich as any east Asian country other than Japan at the time of independence) and east Asia (which has left most parts of Africa far behind in economic growth and democratization since the early 1960s). You really should look up more facts about the rest of the world before giving general policy advice. A good source of information on this subject, even though it is now somewhat old, is the book How the Other Half Dies,
http://www.tni.org/tnibook/how-other-half-dies-0
a free download of a book published in the 1970s, when these trends were becoming apparent.
"Japanese and Dutch adults who were ages 25 to 34 and only completed high school easily outperformed Italian or Spanish university graduates of the same age."
This observation from the article is not a surprise.
I specifically disagree, on the basis of trans-national comparisons. The newly independent former colonies that became independent during my childhood and the formerly backward surviving countries after World War II that became developed countries during my lifetime followed various development paths. All over the world, in a lot of pairings of countries with different cultural backgrounds and differing supplies of natural resources, by far the most successful national development strategy was broad education for the masses. Countries that invested education spending in well designed K-12 education for the whole national population had much higher sustained levels of economic growth (and much more success in democratization) than countries that invested equal spending per capita in subsidized national university education for a tiny elite minority. This contrast in national policies is one of the biggest differences between Africa (which had several countries as rich as any east Asian country other than Japan at the time of independence) and east Asia (which has left most parts of Africa far behind in economic growth and democratization since the early 1960s). You really should look up more facts about the rest of the world before giving general policy advice. A good source of information on this subject, even though it is now somewhat old, is the book How the Other Half Dies,
http://www.tni.org/tnibook/how-other-half-dies-0
a free download of a book published in the 1970s, when these trends were becoming apparent.
"Japanese and Dutch adults who were ages 25 to 34 and only completed high school easily outperformed Italian or Spanish university graduates of the same age."
This observation from the article is not a surprise.
Strength does not equal resilience.
As long as the prosperity is based on top 10% performers (whether educated workforce or economy sector) the system is inherently unstable.The price of natural resources can drop, highly educated people can easily migrate. Consider how much time it took for Detroit to degrade once auto industry shrunk and it became 'uncool' place to live.
As long as the prosperity is based on top 10% performers (whether educated workforce or economy sector) the system is inherently unstable.The price of natural resources can drop, highly educated people can easily migrate. Consider how much time it took for Detroit to degrade once auto industry shrunk and it became 'uncool' place to live.
This isn't surprising since in US, you get what you pay for. In Sweden for example everyone gets the same treatment in school, healthcare etc. Sure would you only count the top 1% Sweden would probably fall below US. But without that the rest of the 99% gets an higher rate.
Well, that's not completely true. In Sweden we have private schools just as they do in the US.
I don't live in US, but I think it's not very fair to measure US with separate countries. It would make more sense to measure separate states. Because if you take EU as a whole you would get worse result too.
The US is a country. France is a country, so is Germany. How is that "not fair"? Should France's results be broken out by province or Australia by state?
That doesn't make sense. They are measuring countries, the EU is not a country. In theory the USA could join the EU.
The point is to measure how government policy affects education.
The point is to measure how government policy affects education.
Yet another reason to break down the US into States, where local policies dominate.
I glanced at the 466 page report for this and couldn't grep a US state... Someone should sell the OECD on an OLAP system so they can easily find this stuff out and publish it. (Or even let journalists and/or the public have direct access...)
I glanced at the 466 page report for this and couldn't grep a US state... Someone should sell the OECD on an OLAP system so they can easily find this stuff out and publish it. (Or even let journalists and/or the public have direct access...)
[deleted]
Local policies also affect other countries. Different provinces, different cities, different schools, different policies...
Sure, and if we had the data broken down we could determine how much variance is within each country and how valid a country-wide report is for each country. Somehow I think France's partitions would be a lot more uniform than the US's partitions for this study, but without the data I can't be sure.
I can absolutely guarantee that this is not the case in France. Try comparing Île-de-France and similarly sized Limousin for example.
I spend a lot of time both in the EU and the US, and find the US remarkably culturally homogeneous compared to Europe. In a country the size of a continent, from coast to coast, you find the same dominant language, traditions, politics, religion, holidays, sports, restaurant chains and stores.
What is the case I imagine, is that one is trained from birth to differentiate the tiny differences within one's own culture and values those so highly, that they look like remarkable diversity, while one doesn't recognize the differences between strangers, and automatically doesn't value them very highly. Can you tell a significant difference between a Slovene and a Hungarian, for example?
This is how 'latin americans' seem like one uniform group, or even 'sub saharan africans' or 'asians', while objectively Amhara from Ethiopia, Hausa from Nigeria and San from South Africa differ far more from each other than say Americans, Italians and Danes differ from each other.
I spend a lot of time both in the EU and the US, and find the US remarkably culturally homogeneous compared to Europe. In a country the size of a continent, from coast to coast, you find the same dominant language, traditions, politics, religion, holidays, sports, restaurant chains and stores.
What is the case I imagine, is that one is trained from birth to differentiate the tiny differences within one's own culture and values those so highly, that they look like remarkable diversity, while one doesn't recognize the differences between strangers, and automatically doesn't value them very highly. Can you tell a significant difference between a Slovene and a Hungarian, for example?
This is how 'latin americans' seem like one uniform group, or even 'sub saharan africans' or 'asians', while objectively Amhara from Ethiopia, Hausa from Nigeria and San from South Africa differ far more from each other than say Americans, Italians and Danes differ from each other.
Every country has more and less developed regions, even super rich mini and micro states like Monaco, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg. And inside these regions, every town has more and less developed areas, and inside these towns, every street does, and on these streets, there are more and less developed homes. Inside these homes, there are more and less developed rooms.
You can keep zooming in, to the most highly developed desk in the most highly developed building in the most highly developed street, in the most highly developed town, etc, and then be content with the absolutely stellar performance if it wasn't for the periphery dragging us down.
You can keep zooming in, to the most highly developed desk in the most highly developed building in the most highly developed street, in the most highly developed town, etc, and then be content with the absolutely stellar performance if it wasn't for the periphery dragging us down.
No one is particularly interested in "fair". Fair doesn't generate clicks.
The OECD isn't interested in clicks. Not everything in the world is powered by banners.
It would be nice if they explained how "scoring below average" results in "an underclass that is basically unemployable". The absolute measurements are what matter most. Everything else is pride, folly, and excessive nationalism. Although I suppose healthy competition could occasionally help us move further along the right path.
Lately, I have noticed several US news publications referring to the Netherlands and Belgium as being situated in Northern Europe. That bugs me, they’re actually in Western Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe
From Brussels to the nearest Scandinavian country, Denmark, is a 10 hour drive.
Here’s the paragraph I’m referring to: “But in the northern European countries that have fared better, the picture was brighter — and the study credits continuing education. In Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, more than 60 percent of adults took part in either job training or continuing education.”
(I’ll refrain from making the obvious jokes about Americans being bad at general geography.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe
From Brussels to the nearest Scandinavian country, Denmark, is a 10 hour drive.
Here’s the paragraph I’m referring to: “But in the northern European countries that have fared better, the picture was brighter — and the study credits continuing education. In Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, more than 60 percent of adults took part in either job training or continuing education.”
(I’ll refrain from making the obvious jokes about Americans being bad at general geography.)
It is absolutely wrong, ignorant and probably fascist to include Belgium and the Netherlands in the same geographic subdivision. The line between Northern and Southern Europe is somewhere between Rotterdam and Antwerp. Belgium is on the northern outskirts of the Mediterranean region.
I understand it was an attempt at humor, but there is no line that divides Northern and Southern Europe. Western Europe is in between both (like Central America is in between North and South America).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_subregion_map_UN_ge...
Also, ‘the Mediterranean’ is not the same as Southern Europe. For instance, France, Monaco, and Corsica are not part of Southern Europe, even though they are in the Mediterranean. Portugal is in Southern Europe, but it isn’t in the Mediterranean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_subregion_map_UN_ge...
Also, ‘the Mediterranean’ is not the same as Southern Europe. For instance, France, Monaco, and Corsica are not part of Southern Europe, even though they are in the Mediterranean. Portugal is in Southern Europe, but it isn’t in the Mediterranean.
This post-Cold War classification is somewhat oversimplified.. The category of Central Europe (or Middle Europe) is more helpful in understanding the divisions. Vide "The stolen West..." by Kundera, for example
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Central Europe (or Middle Europe) doesn’t include the Netherlands or Belgium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
(An European myself) I have met highly educated Europeans who believed that Mexico is in Southern America. Or that Kazakhstan - one of the largest countries in the world, mind you - is in Europe :)
Sure, I’m willing to bet most Europeans don’t know either of those facts. However, it can be expected of a journalist writing about the subject to look it up. And if he fails to do so, then surely, the error is spotted by a fact checker or editor. That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyways.
Measured reading, maths & problem solving.
What about, creativity, critical thinking and arts? Harder to quantify, but just as important.
What about, creativity, critical thinking and arts? Harder to quantify, but just as important.
A decent test for problem solving will measure creativity and critical thinking. Synthesis isn't always particularly aesthetic, but it does generally involve quite some creativity.
It's interesting that American adults are ranking 17th in problem solving on these tests. Still, I wonder... how much bearing does a problem solving test question have on actual, modern day problems?
George Carlin's thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE
George Carlin's thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE
Sigh Yet another US Education hit piece. I love reading these because they all have the same myopic trope:
1. Other countries score better on subject tests than the US on average.
2. This has traditionally been blamed on the USA's high diversity and immigrant population.
3. Cue policy expert giving us a dire warning about how there are no politically tenable solutions to the US education crisis.
4. Cue 2nd policy expert talking about how devastating the skills gap will be on the economy.
Can someone give us a different angle?
1. Other countries score better on subject tests than the US on average.
2. This has traditionally been blamed on the USA's high diversity and immigrant population.
3. Cue policy expert giving us a dire warning about how there are no politically tenable solutions to the US education crisis.
4. Cue 2nd policy expert talking about how devastating the skills gap will be on the economy.
Can someone give us a different angle?
I get that it makes you uncomfortable, but it feels like you're asking for someone to give you the ability to stick your head in the sand and excuse the problem.
The problem is real and will likely manifest itself dramatically over the next century.
The problem is real and will likely manifest itself dramatically over the next century.
Your parent is unhappy with these articles because they are basically doomsday proclamations. "Uncomfortable" doesn't even enter into it, because the message is simply "welp, we're fucked". That's why new angles would be interesting.
But other countries aren't fucked. They did well on the test, so why can't the solution be to do what those other countries are doing?
Flanders and Australia are every bit as 'incomparable' as Finland and the US, so let's just compare anyway. It turns out there are major consequences for income inequality, and most of the countries listed in the top categories have worked aggressively to reduce it and to alleviate it's consequences through social programs.
Flanders and Australia are every bit as 'incomparable' as Finland and the US, so let's just compare anyway. It turns out there are major consequences for income inequality, and most of the countries listed in the top categories have worked aggressively to reduce it and to alleviate it's consequences through social programs.
What those other countries are doing is not having many Africans. But this is not a problem, and would be difficult to fix even if it were.
Income inequality is a major goal of American politics. The poverty oligarchs farm the poor for votes. This will continue for as long as Americans practice the perversion known as democracy.
Income inequality is a major goal of American politics. The poverty oligarchs farm the poor for votes. This will continue for as long as Americans practice the perversion known as democracy.
It would be interesting to see that list, against the amount each govt spends on health, education etc...
This is only news if you live in America, I guess :) It's common knowledge around the rest of the world. In fact, it has become somewhat of a defining characteristic of what it means to be american.
Was the test in Japanese? That would explain the results. :)
"America's school kids have historically scored low on international assessment tests compared to other countries, which is often blamed on the diversity of the population and the high number of immigrants."
America's diversity is a creation myth. Outside of New York, it isn't very diverse at all, and compared to Western Europe it doesn't have a very high number of immigrants.
Or does the American definition of 'diversity' only refer to the number of black people? In that case, blaming their numbers for lower test scores is kind of ... racist, isn't it?