Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Math Skills Survey Shows U.S. Lags Behind 1528

3l1za writes "The New York Times reports that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has released its results (pdf) for a test of mathematical skills given to 15 year olds in 40 different countries. A few apparent anomalies: The US kids rated 28th of 40 (so in the bottom third) while the Czech Republic, which spends in education 1/3 of what the US spends, ranked in the top 10. Further, only about 1/3 of US kids reported that they did not feel as though they were good at math, whereas about 2/3 of Koreans reported this--and the Koreans ranked in the top three. 'Mr. Schleicher said that students in countries that emphasized theorems and rote learning tended not to do as well as those that emphasized the more practical aspects of mathematics.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Math Skills Survey Shows U.S. Lags Behind

Comments Filter:
  • My elementary school (Score:5, Interesting)

    by meganthom ( 259885 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @03:56PM (#11022418)
    More and more, I am seeing that my elementary school must have been an oddity in the US. We were a public school in a small town in TN, of all places, but it was extremely progressive. There was a mix of rote- and practical learning taught at each level. In second grade, we learned the multiplication tables up to 12s, had regular 4M (100 questions in less than 4 minutes) tests, and spent a large amount of time on accounting. We even learned some (very) basic algebra. Throughout elementary school, we had these math projects that involved physical objects, and our tests were generally in word-problem form. Then, in fifth grade, all the kids who were good at math were sent to learn pre-algebra and algebra 1 through interactive computer programs while the other kids got more hands-on help with their math woes. And at some point, we had fraction-based space-invaders computer games to play in between learning segments...

    Someday, maybe I'll tell you all about our phys. ed., art, and music programs. =)
  • by LiberalApplication ( 570878 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @03:58PM (#11022457)
    In this country, there's a huge stigma attached to being good at math. If you are good at math, you're a nerd, where as all the cool kids suck at math, and are proud of that fact. Change the perceptions, and you'll go a long way toward improving the scores.
    ...academics in high-school are extremely competitive, with large numbers of students enrolled in afterschool study programs. It's actually a point of pride to be academically competent, and it's not unusual for ones' childrens' achievements to be the subject of local gossip, for better or worse, regardless of socioeconomic status.
  • by badmammajamma ( 171260 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:02PM (#11022535)
    True, they do have superior educational systems. I believe this is primarily due to the fact that they don't put up with the bullshit our teachers do. In our schools, if a teacher so much as yells at a student, they are suspended and warned that their job is at risk. Oddly, we did so much better back when our teachers could take a paddle to the kids. Nowadays there is no respect by the kids show for their educators or the educational system. Fix that, and you fix the problem.
  • by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:02PM (#11022540)
    The U.S. public school system is a product of liberalism. We spend far more money than most countries and get little in return. When I lived in K.C. they did a study and determined that with what it cost to send 1 student through the system there they could have put the same student through Harvard and provided him limo service to and from school for his duration. Before people start with stupid remarks about Bush, understand that Democrats controlled Congress and the Senate through the formidable years of the public school system. Furthermore, the teacher's union (who supports Democrats) opposes things like No Child Left Behind, which requires them to meet expectations. Getting a grade is being replaced with getting marks for trying in many schools. This is being documented in many cases. Schools like to complain that NCLB is under funded when the truth is there is a lot of that money untouched by schools.
  • Bang for the Buck (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mogrify ( 828588 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:04PM (#11022575) Homepage
    I wonder if the education spending numbers reflect spending on actual education, or on 'educational' extras like school sports programs, transportation, nutrition, etc. Not to argue the relative merit or necessity of these programs... but the fact is that they're there, and it's possible that it just costs more to educate a U.S. student than a Czech or a Korean because of all the overhead. Maybe the U.S. just doesn't get as much bang for its bucks. Coupled with a school culture that places more value on extrascholastic activities, this would explain why you can throw a ton of money into the system and produce generations of kids who hate (and suck at) math.
  • by FatRatBastard ( 7583 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:14PM (#11022762) Homepage
    Perhaps instead of demanding more money, schools should evaluate how they are spending the money they already get.

    *** WARNING: Blog Pimping Ahead ***

    Bingo! I live in DC and see this crap first hand. The students routinely score at the bottom of the national average, the drop out and truancy rates are staggering, and some of the schools, when not falling over from sever neglect, are borderline war zones (and I wish I was exaggerating about this).

    Interestingly enough, though, DC public schools are well funded on a per student basis. Near the top nationwide. So if its not money, what's to blame? How about bloated, ineffectual at best / corrupt at worst managment (contract being awarded to the highest bidder, complete lack of any sort of capital works plan). How about criminally low expectations ("Want to be able to graduate without ever stepping into a math class? Go right ahead." "Don't feel like coming to school? Don't worry, we won't consider you truant until you miss fifteen days in a row ). How about a Teacher's Union that cares more about ripping off its members to the tune of $2+ million than the welfare of the children its supposed to teach.

    The only good that has come out of DC's education mess is a vibrant private school system that caters to all socio-economic backgrounds. DCPS is proof positive that you can't solve problems by simply throwing money at them.

    (You can read the sordid details at the DC Education Blog [blogspot.com])
  • Top Heavy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dark Bard ( 627623 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:18PM (#11022812)
    Half my family are teachers. From what I can see the money is very tight. They can't even aford paper. My sister like many teachers spends her own money for supplies. The problem isn't the amount spent per child it's the amount that reaches each child in the form of direct education. Most of the money like most government departments gets consumed in bloated administrative costs. You might be shocked to find what the proportion of highly paid administrators are to teachers. Remember the structure is very complex and there are many levels between the Congress and the teachers. I've worked at companies where there were three administrators and office people for every person actually working to produce product. The school system is much worse. Let's say the government wanted to add a 10,000 new teachers. Even if they were being paid $50,000 a year that would only be $500,000,000, a bargin. But that's not the way it works. When you add administrative costs I think you'd find it would cost several billion maybe much more. Other than a handful of new accountants to pay the teachers in truth just how much more support is needed. Yes there are more classrooms and supplies but with most schools they have the space just need enough teachers. The knee jerk reaction to an education problems seems to be more planning/administrators. Fire half the administrative staff and hire an equal number of teachers. You'll save money and put a lot of teachers in classrooms where they are needed. Maybe with the money saved they can actually buy paper and books.
  • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:18PM (#11022817) Homepage Journal
    interesting to me.

    When I was taught that you can tell if a wall is straight with only a measuring tape.
    3 foot out make mark
    4 foot up. make mark.
    mearsure the distance between the marks, should be 5 feet.

  • Re:US School System (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Knightfall ( 558914 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:19PM (#11022845)


    PREACH IT!!!!!!
    My wife just recently transferred her passion for Biology/Anatomy/Physiology into a teaching career. It has been a nightmare. The kids are indeed little bastards. Not only the poor kids, not only the rich kids, but almost all of them. NO personal accountability and no parental support. When you have teachers being physically threatened by students and administration and parents doing nothing becasue "they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings" , then of course nothing is getting taught or learned.

    What makes this story even worse is my wife teaches in the 4th richest county in the country, and supposedly the top educational county in our state. If this is the best, God help those below!

  • Re:So? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by haluness ( 219661 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:21PM (#11022879)
    when Americans themselves don't care in the first place and have no economic need to change


    Your reasoning is certainly correct. But it seems sad that as long finances are OK, its OK for a person (or a people) to not bother to improve their mental skills.

    Money is certainly nice - but somehow just ending up as a comfartable potato with a fat bank account seems to be a waste of brain

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:25PM (#11022949)
    Something tells me the parent might just be modded off-topic.

    I could be wrong though.

    (But I'm not.)
  • Canada ranked third (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DJ_Goldfingerz ( 612551 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:30PM (#11023037)
    Woo-hoo!

    And to improve the actual performance of Americans, it's not out of 40 but out of 41 countries. And in the news paper I read this morning, it said US ranked 24th not 28th, except I couldn't confirm with the OECD's site.
  • by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:32PM (#11023079) Journal
    You must be American.

    Try this math problem.

    School 'A' spends $5 million dollars to put in a state of the art arena with an expected income of $1.2 million in ticket sales annually, side line advertising, and vending sales. School 'B' spends $5 million dollars on a state of the art Math department that will regain $100,000 a year in tuition. School 'A' gets larger attendance and educates far more people, School 'B' sees a 5% increase in Math scores but a decline in attendance. Which school made the better use of the money?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:34PM (#11023108)
    I suspect the US would place a lot higher relative to highly homogenous societies like the ones at the top.
    Nice try. Canada is right up there near the top of the rankings, and our society is as heterogeneous as the US, if not more.
  • Re:US School System (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wass ( 72082 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:35PM (#11023115)
    The system is just horseshit. No responsibility, teachers can't teach, kids are a bunch of bastards, and the parents are taking absolutely no responsibility for the kids.

    Actually, quite a bit of the problem rests on the parents. My mom teaches 3rd grade in an inner-city public school, just outside of NYC. There's a strong correlation between the problem kids and the parents.

    This is most notable at the parent-teacher conferences. The kids that do well in the class usually have parents that come to these conferences, and listen to the teacher's descriptions and suggestions. The kids that don't do well typically have parents that never show up at these conferences or otherwise show absolutely no interest in their child's education. One time at such a conference my mother told a student's mother that the student was very poorly behaved. The student's mother's response was "Oh, just smack him upside the head when he acts up like that". A different teacher once saw a mother pull up to the school and unload the kids who were in the trunk (dept. of social services was called on this one). There's actually many more examples of things like this.

    Another correlation is that many of the problem students rarely or never miss a day of school. In other words, even if they're sick, their parents still force them to go to school. This is because some of the parents think of school as a free day-care system to get the kids out of the house. While some of these families certainly have both parents work in the day, other families have mothers that don't work but still send the kid to school to keep them out of the house in the day.

    It's pretty sad because these factors indicate that many of these children are not getting the proper parental support and nurturing they need, which in turn will lead them to develop a similarly neglectful lifestyle. Some of the parents hated school when they were little and pass on the same hatred of school to the kids. Some parents outright tell their kids not to worry too much about homework or studying.

    It's really a sad state of affairs. Part of the problem, that another poster said elsewhere, is that in the USA school is really uncool. And being smart in some area, except gym class, is really uncool. Much of these perceptions are easily fed by the media, eg in commercials, tv shows, and movies. But if we could change these perceptions, IMHO it would really make a difference.

  • Re:Laziness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:42PM (#11023234) Homepage
    Surface integral of a vector field? Program an aircraft or rocket simulator without it :)

    See, in a case like that, the teacher could assign a project to create a CFD program that implements the reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (with the turbulence model of your choice optional). It'd be even better if people were assigned to create an optimal shape for some given purpose using the program, and then everyone's shapes would be fabricated and put in a real-world test.

    Now, you may decide that simulators or part design aren't your thing. That's fine. :) But for other people, that could well be the spark that ignites an interest - actually going from mathematical concept to a real object that they can hold in their hands.

    In general (not always, but usually), things aren't taught unless they have a significant real-world application. A goal should be to make the real world application abundantly clear. :)
  • by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:48PM (#11023339) Journal
    Yeah but does your esteem really go up when someone praises you for something both of you know is quite simple. You tied your shoes this morning, great job, doesn't do nearly as much to build self esteem as you and your dad working on a cabinet, model rocket, buttonhook route, or installing that 4 barrell carb and hearing that you did well. The real problem is that kids too rarely hear praise from their folks for doing something challenging and succeeding (or even failing) and getting a look of pride that says you did wonderfully win or lose and you didn't give up doing it. Those kids have tons of self esteem (and a healthy dose of fear of letting their parents down in school) and are highly likely to be on the road to success in almost any school system.
  • by Kunta Kinte ( 323399 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:52PM (#11023405) Journal
    Imagine being a nerdy black kid. I was. The black kids sometimes though that I was "trying to be white" because I was good at math. The white kids often resented that I was "showing off" that I was good at math.

    As another nerdy black kid, I have had plenty of time coming to terms with that phenomena. The problem is race perception.

    Many very well-meaning people unknowingly sterotype the intelligence and preferences of others. They reserve their limited use the latest "street slang" for you, even if you usually converse with them in near perfect english. They comment that the music at the party sucks and they'd much rather rap hoping to strike a cord. They are nice people, but that attitude is very dangerous when that person needs to interview you for a job or somehow otherwise assess your capabilities.

    The sad thing is that after a while people begin to lean towards what is expected of them.

    I highly, highly recommend Da Capo Best Music Writing 2004 [amazon.com] . The essays in this book cover race and other socio-economic factors affecting pop culture and race perception, amongst over things. Coves all the new trends, eg. What does the Bohemian movement and modern rap have in common? This was a mind-opening book, the best I've read all year.

  • Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FerretFrottage ( 714136 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @04:55PM (#11023452)
    Because of such programs, teachers have left for more afluent schools or they have left specialized programs. In the example of CSAP, it is hard for schools to find special ed teachers. Wonder why? Think those kids score high on CSAP tests? With so few spec ed teachers, spec ed students have been integrated into the regular classes at the learning expense of the other children. It's not that I'm saying that spec ed students shouldn't get a chance, but at least give their teachers a more level playing field so that they [the teachers] can do what they really want...teach.

    And it is stupid to just have students memorize answers (espcially for fundamentals that other subjects build upon)...it's not the right way to teach and that is what the teachers complain about...they aren't being allowed to teach and it makes school boring for both the student(s) and the teacher(s). Please elaborate on how those teachers are wrong...or so you work for a school administration in such a program?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @05:03PM (#11023551)
    Not that they were born dumb. They were made dumb by the system. I grew up in an Eastern European country. I thank god (and communists :O) every day for providing me with such a great education. Sure, I was poor, and I didn't have a computer, but while the American kids were playing stupid video games, I was either reading a book, or outside playing soccer/basketball with my friends. That was our fun. So, I turned out not to be fat or stupid. I was amazed when I started going to college in the US, how easy you had it guys (no oral part to the exams, cheat sheets allowed, and all that). 90% of your senior university students wouldn't make it past the freshman year in most of the rest of the world. The "I-don't-need-to-learn-this-since-it's-not-helping -me-make-money" mentality is what kills you guys. Same applies to "Oh, I can't make a school team, and I have no chance to be a pro, so why should I play sports".

    You don't require enough of your kids in school, and even the little that's required, you don't enforce. Your parental skills are zilch. It's not the teacher's fault that your kid doesn't know crap, it's yours as a parent. If a teacher fails half the class, don't blame the teacher as long as he/she stated the requirements for passing the class clearly at the beginning. And do not curve when you grade. Either you pass or not. Don't do that "Everybody in the class is dumb, so I won't fail them all, I'll geave the least dumb one an A, and curve everyone else." Everyone below 60% (or whatever) fails. Period. Even if it means failing everyone.

    Kick your kid in the butt, throw out that Nintendo, chat rooms, demented TV shows, or better yet, sit down with him/her and teach them something. Make sure your kids study for at least 3-4 hours a day (plus or minus depending on how smart they are) and you'll see the results. What? They don't want to? Well, that's where you come in as a parent to make sure you make them. It's either that or let your kids be educated not by books, but by Hollywood and the rest.

    The society's (parents' and schools') obligation is to make sure everyone comes out of high school well-educated (even if it means repeating a coupls of years). As for the higher education, well guys, don't dumb it down so everyone gets a chance. What's up with this everybody goes to college, nobody fails crap. Pretty much if you stick around and keep paying, you'll get some kind of a degree. Not everyone is smart enough for college.
  • by fupeg ( 653970 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @05:24PM (#11023881)
    There is a HUGE socioeconomic stratification in terms of education in this country.
    Yes there is, and do you want to know why? Because of people like you saying things like:
    The question is, what can we do about it? The first step is admitting we have a problem (which we do), that there's no reason why we should be lagging behind ANYONE!
    When you try to eliminate "stratification" by using the government to decide on how to educate people, you just make things much worse. The government tries to set standards for schools, mandate curriculums, etc. This has the effect of pushing people towards a common standard, and that standard is always going to be a minimum standard. You push all students towards a minimum standard. That includes students who might otherwise achieve at higher levels above those standards. You also push all teachers towards minimum standards. A buereaucrat winds up telling a teacher how to do their job.

    The "no child left behind" program is idiotic. I have several nieces and nephews in public schools. Their teachers have set curriculums they must cover each year. If they don't cover everything and their kids do poorly in testing, they get in trouble. So they try to cover everything, teaching just enough of each topic to hopefully get everyone to answer the questions that will be on standardized testing. Hence all the rote learning as mentioned in the article.

    And of course there is a price to pay for all this too. There is a significant tax burden to everyone to pay for schools. I am lucky enough to make enough money so that I can send my children to a private school and pay this tax burden. Many parents are not so lucky and have to send their children to public schools. And there's your socioeconomic stratification for you.

    However, it's the attitude that "there's no reason why we should be lagging behind ANYONE" that is the root of these problems. There are actually a lot of good reasons for students to lag behind. If you have a child whose parents don't care about education, the child will not do well in school. There's nothing the government can do about this. It is up to parents to educate their children, not the government. That means there will be lots of children who don't go to school, but so what? If you round those kids up and force them to school, they won't do well anyways.

    Testing is fine, but it should be up to parents to react to the results. If their child is doing poorly, they have options. Chances are there are things that they can do, but if they really think it's the school's fault, they should change schools. If the school is not publically financed, then it will do its best to make sure this does not happen so that it can continue to operate. However, if the parent has no reason to take personal responsibility for their children's education and, just as bad, has no way of taking action about it, then they will just blame the school and will have to rely on the government to do something about it. That is the current situation for the majority of parents/children in this country, and you can see where it's landed us -- in the bottom third.
  • Re:Laziness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @05:26PM (#11023903) Homepage Journal
    This is a good point. But how can math be shown to be relevant to most Americans in their everyday lives? Most slobs don't cook their own meals, so the fractions in measurement won't come up. If your day job consists of saying "Hi and welcome to Walmart" I don't think you're going to be doing much math. People no longer work on their houses, cars or home appliances because everything is becoming disposable. It's cheaper and safer to pay someone else to come in and swap in a new home heating system than trying to fix it yourself. It's easier to buy a new TV than fix that broken one because TVs have become so inexpensive now. There really aren't many places in the average American's life where math comes into play in any practical or (more importantly) fun way. Now me on the other hand... I've rewired my house, build my own computer systems and use Linux. My wife and I cook our own food mostly from scratch since the quality of what passes for food these days is pretty frightening. We make our own soft drinks. I create my own music, etc... I know I'm not the average American though. That's the problem and that's why most Americans are failing in all academic categories.
  • by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @05:46PM (#11024184) Journal
    My son graduated from a private American high school with an A average, earned 5's on all five of his AP courses, SAT's in the mid 1400's. He ended up going to UC Berkeley.

    Last year, he took a Quantum Mechanics class. At the course's beginning, the prof said the pace would be harsh but he figured most students would cope. Mid-terms showed otherwise. My son earned a 75% on the mid-term. He was depressed until he found out the class average was in the 40's. That made him feel better until he found out that his house mates aced the test. His house mates are from Singapore and Taiwan.

    When he asked them how they had managed to ace the mid term, they all shrugged their shoulders and said they'd seen the material in high school. They had seen the material in high school for multiple reasons. [greenes.com] The typical Taiwanese goes to school 220 days out of a year instead of 180 here in California. The school days are longer, typically 8-5 instead of 8:30 to 2:30 here. The elementary teachers have strong math skills as opposed to our elemetary teachers. Parents in Asia expect more from their children than American parents do and the end results are Asian children have been trouncing American children academically for the past 20 years.

    In case you're wondering about the source of all the facts cited above, here are the citations. [greenes.com]

    The story isn't completely grim however. The United States is nothing if not adaptable. The alternative school movement in the U.S. has made an opening for schools like this one [whitneyhs.net], this one [pacificcollegiate.com] and KIPP schools [kipp.org] to function. As the existence and efficacy of these kinds of options becomes more commonly recognized, American education will shift.

  • Germany (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MGrie ( 676464 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @05:50PM (#11024248) Homepage
    I don't know how big this is in the US, but German media is currently going completely bonkers because we only made place 12.
    Talk about hurt pride. ;)
  • by LA_Samurai ( 730890 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @05:56PM (#11024351)
    I was born and raised in South Korea and came to the states when I was 18 years old. I can attest to the fact that most Koreans hold education to be extremely important. There's a great pressure on kids to excel in academics. On the other hand, if you're not cut out to be academically gifted, there are schools for arts and athletics. This, of course, is tentamount to "tracking" which is not acceptable to most Americans. I know because I taught in Los Angeles Unified School District for 9 years. There's a truth in calling American public education system "egalitarian" in the sense it's geared to the lowest common denominator and thereby ignoring the gifted or the challenged. There are other inherent problems with American education system as well, such as children who are woefully unprepared for any type of rigorous academic subjects. Mostly it's divided along socioeconomic/race lines. I believe American society is one of the most color-blind society in the world. Having lived in a number of countries (including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait--my father was a US-trained jet fighter plane mechanic), I can tell you that I was subjected to racial taunts in the Middle Eastern countries, but never in the States. My point is that parents must do better at raising kids. Instead of throwing them a pair of Nikes, save that money and take them to the Museum of Natural Sciences or to the Music Hall. These days, most parents are too busy working and making money that their children become latch key kids or worse. Throwing more money to kids or to schools won't solve the problem. Our kids will keep falling behind the world in math and sciences. It's not money (or the lack thereof), or the society that's keeping the kids in the gutter. It's the parents.
  • Finland (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @06:13PM (#11024626)
    Finland once again came out top in the OECD's latest PISA study of learning skills among 15-year-olds, with high performances in mathematics and science matching those of top-ranking Asian school systems in Hong Kong-China, Japan and Korea.
    Finland already led in the PISA 2000 reading assessment, and in PISA 2003 it maintained its high level of reading literacy while further improving its performance in mathematics and science.

    It seems like Finnish teenagers are the best both in reading and math skills, but how come the biggest fear in Finnish minds is that Finland does not produce good enough engineers and some day Nokia will move its HQ out of Finland?!?

    It's true. In the media this is (and has been) considered as the biggest threat to Finnish economy. No matter what you read, we think we suck. Maybe we do.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @06:26PM (#11024818)
    You misunderstand completely.

    Nobody is saying that these Asian kids are wunderkind necessarily by their own merits. But the society in which they grow up is conducive to higher academic achievement, as has been proven time and time again.

    With that in mind, and assuming you are talking about a North American university, do you not see why the data you've encountered is completely irrelevant? The tendency for young people of all cultures is to "get away with" whatever they can. If laziness is the norm for students at your academic institution, that is will become the new norm for these Asian kids as well.
  • by PastaLover ( 704500 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @06:43PM (#11025106) Journal

    I had to search a while but I found this OECD raport [oecd.org] which among other things has a table of immigration per 1000 inhabitants. You can see right there that the US is in the low end compared to other countries, including many European ones. So this disproves (1) (assuming the data is somewhat correct, it is off course a bit off).

    Secondly, most immigrants to European countries come from Third World countries (I'm thinking Arab and African nations here). And I don't know what anybody meant by 3.

    But it proves a point that you should be careful about saying "we have x immigrants more", while usually when you break down the numbers it just isn't correct. (in this case the US does have more immigrants in absolute numbers, but this is logical with it being the biggest nation)

  • by drew ( 2081 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @07:03PM (#11025463) Homepage
    Why shouldn't I also be able to rely on an expert to teach my kids what I'm not really equipped or qualified for myself.

    you should, but that's not really the issue. as another poster mentioned, many americans today see the school system as a free baby sitter program. by sending their kids off to school, they feel they are absolved of any responsibility for their kids' educations. unfortunately, things don't work that way. kids learn from their parents, whether the parents like it or admit it. they learn by emulation and observation. if the parents just see school as a way to not have to worry about their kids while the state educates them, then the kids won't care about doing well in school either. and sending your kid to a private school (in and of itself) won't help your kids either. one of the biggest reasons private schools tend to perform better than public schools is that the parents who are willing to send their kids to private schools are more likely actually care about the education their child is receiving, and impress that upon their children.

    my parents are both teachers, and i know a lot of teachers both among friends my age and people who are old enough to have been one of my teachers. in general, students who do well in school are more likely to have parents who take an interest in what is going on in school, and poor students tend to have parents that could care less about what happens to their child from the time they leave for work in the morning until they get home.
  • Re:US School System (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @07:15PM (#11025600)
    I think you extrapolated the meaning behind the original poster's comment. The school system is crap and partly due to the way that teachers teach, but the fact that the system is overfunded doesn't mean that teachers are paid too much -- it just means that teachers aren't seeing the money that should be available.

    In my county, students cost the school system around $7000 each. Assuming an average class size of 30, that's $210,000 per class. Where is all the money going?
  • by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @07:23PM (#11025696) Journal
    Yes, but as a graduate student from India here in the US, I'll tell you this - the US has more resources.

    Which is why a lot of us are encouraged to do our undergraduate back home and come here for gradschool. Big labs aren't all that important for your undergraduate studies, however the moment you start doing serious research you need good resources.

    Developing countries cannot provide this - and the US benefits because they go to school in their homeland and end up studying/working here. If India wants its brightest and best to stay in India, the focus on research should increase.

    This is a very big advantage that the US has - resources do matter a lot.
  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @07:51PM (#11026049)
    What kids did they test in the foriegn countries? Something most people forget, or perhaps never knew, is that many other countries have segregated schools based off of performace. In Germany for example there are three major tiers:

    Hauptschule: This is basically vocational school, the idea being that you probably don't get any further schooling after this. In the US it would be to say your intention is to get a highschool diploma, nothing more, with an emphasis on practical clases.

    Realschule: This is something like a trade school, idea being maybe some secondary training. In the US, it would be for those that wanted to go on to get an AA degree or the like.

    Gymnasium: This is for the university bound kids.

    (Note that they do have a couple of alternitives to this kind of schooling as well)

    Ok, well if the kids you are testing are the ones int the Gymnasium and maybe in the Realschule but not the Hauptschule, your averages will be much higher. This is often how the testing is done for academic tests, given that the kids in teh lower schools aren't on a track for an academic life anyhow.

    I don't have the time to read the whole survey, but I could not find any data on this. They claim that countries sought to include as wide a cross section as possible, but made no specifics to level of education of the students. That a student is in a given grade says nothing. In grade 12 at my high school a student could be in anything from calculus to remedial algerbra. The same is not true of a student in a Gymnasium.

    I additonally question these studies because of my personal experience with people educated under a foriegn system. I work for an Electrical and Computer Engineering department which, as one might expect, has a high percentage of foriegn students, primarly Indian and Asian.

    What I continually find is that the Chinese students in particular are very good with memorization and forumlas, but very bad at analysis and application. They can crunch numbers like nothing, but when it comes to applying that knowledge to simple real-world scenarios, they are sunk. For them, being smart is knowing a lot of facts and forulams and being able to mash them together, not being able to synthesize and apply data to the real world.

    As you note with your "don't give a fuck" stastic, I'd need to see a lot more controls before I'd consider this meaningful. I'd want to know things like how intelligence correlated to score, and what level of education the kids recieving the scores recieved (at the very least).
  • Counterexample (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Schwarzchild ( 225794 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @07:57PM (#11026126)
    I had a cool teacher in high school algebra. Someone asked him if we would ever use this stuff and his answer?

    "Probably not."

  • by camooT ( 820852 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @08:57PM (#11026898)
    is at the root of the problem.

    Parents don't apply pressure on their kids to do better in school, they feel it's not important. It's common belief among bureaucrats and administrators today that education spending is always positively correlated with educational return -- which is usually true, -- but we have to consider how this money is spent.

    Take my school district for example. Last year, several million dollars were spent on bathroom renovations and a NEW gym. So our school has new bathrooms (which have already been wrecked) and a new gym (whose size is comparable to our old one, which is still what we're using for PE). Our teachers, however, are currently going on strike over wages. Several popular courses, including an excellent creative writing class, were cut.

    Let's face it, we Americans are too convinced of our superiority. We consider our lax educational policies to be an evolution and laugh upon those who are forced into school 6 days a week. But who can blame us, being painfully wealthy tends to make you stupid.

  • Re:Laziness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by celeritas_2 ( 750289 ) <ranmyaku@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:25PM (#11027176)
    I'm being totally serious here, my senior class voted for Another Brick in the Wall for our class song. It was rejected the next day, we'd rebel, but alas we're just too lazy i guess :)
  • by JavaRob ( 28971 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:44PM (#11027328) Homepage Journal
    Until we impress on young minds the fact that cool or uncool makes no difference when you're grown and penniless

    An interesting tangent on this -- my wife grew up in Malaysia, and when she was a kid the smartest kids *were* the most popular. No one wanted to hang out with the kids who were doing poorly in their classes, because they weren't cool. Appearance mattered somewhat, too, but was less of a factor. And all the kids she knew *liked* vegetables -- she was totally baffled when she learned about how everyone in the US "knows" that kids just automatically don't like vegetables, need special kids menus with chicken fingers, etc.. None of her friends were like that. Here favorite food growing up was spinach (still is, actually). Yes, I'm totally serious.

    Malaysia has problems of their own that seriously hinder education, like blatantly racist policies controlling access to higher education, but the totally different path to "cool" is worth noting. It's NOT automatic that the "nerds" are unpopular (and then never learn proper social skills...), or even that there is some derogatory name for them.

    I wish I could follow this up with some good suggestions for fixing this problem... but I'm kind of lost for answers on that one. The first step is at least pointing it out -- then maybe we can work on building better ways for kids to actually use what they learn to do cool stuff; that should help.
  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:06PM (#11027517) Journal
    I see lots of parents driving their children around to all these activities with little thought to important childhood experiences such as play and fun.

    I think part of the issue is that "play and fun" usually just means sitting in front of the teevee, playing GTA, or shopping at the mall.
  • Re:Laziness (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:43PM (#11027836)
    "Only 27 % if Americans (over 25) have earned college degree in 2002. Is that higher then the past years? Sure. But damn it, we are the richest Country in the word, but more then 2/3 of the people only have (at best) a high school education? That's fucking ridiculous."

    Electricians don't need a college education, and a union electrician makes $26 an hour out here. With overtime, they make more in a year than I do with a Ph.D. Plumbers and carpenters, and masons all make good money. College is not necessary for a good living. More education or training or apprenticeship after high-school is needed. Sending everyone to college is pointless.

    I started college at age 27 after 8 years in the Navy. There were a lot of lost teenage souls on campus who had no idea why they were there. (And this was a land grant school, not a liberal arts joint.) And they did badly, and I suspect many of them are either working outside their majors, or depressed about the job they hate, but are now stuck with. Stay out of college until you know what you want from it. It's too expensive in time and money to screw up.

    (P.S. For those who don't know, a land grant university typically has a charter ordering it to pursue subjects of practical use for the original settlement of the area. Thus they focus on agriculture, engineering, teacher education, and hard sciences. Four to six classes of "liberal arts" is all that's required, and at least two of them are English, which you need anyway to write the reports in the other majors. The point is that land grant schools are very goal oriented, and attract practical, goal-oriented people, not the dreamy-eyed mystic types, or the "anguished wailer" class.)
  • Don't - Know - Shit. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MadMacSkillz ( 648319 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @12:07AM (#11028608) Homepage
    Lots of the posters in this thread don't know shit. Nothing like starting out with a nice insult to get people to read your post, right?

    First... if you're judging public education by your experience back in the 80's, you don't know shit. Education has changed since then. Some changes for the better, some not, but it's different. So shut up.

    Second... if you are judging american schools based on your own experience in one or two schools, you don't know shit. That's a sample that is too small to be statistically significant.

    Third... don't compare the US to countries where they get to kick all the dumb kids out by age 12. Some countries do that, you know. And only the bright ones get to go to prep (for college) school. Not all countries do that, but some.

    Fourth... don't assume that throwing more money at the problem will not help. It will. Let me explain. We can't get teachers because no one wants the shit pay and lack of respect. Steve Jobs said it best. Pay teachers $100,000 per year. What would happen? We'd have extreme competition and some of the brightest and best people would pursue teaching, instead of a field that actually pays their fucking bills. The more competition, the higher the quality of the candidates. Teaching would be a respected profession. Kids would want to grow up to be teachers. The process of learning would take on a greater meaning because it would be tied to what we americans worship most - the almighty fucking dollar.

    Fifth... don't think you can throw the blame at one or two groups. Our entire economy and way of life is based on us continually buying a bunch of shit we don't really need (capitalism.) There are larger factors at play here than just "bad parents." Everyone, including parents and teachers and students themselves, needs to do their part to help.

    By the way, I work at a high school. I am doing my part.

  • by cocotoni ( 594328 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2004 @03:40PM (#11035126)
    Sorry to disagree with you, but there is a place for this kind of maths. Problem is that it is not applied correctly. Problem is that you have a standardized multiple choice quiz with 12*48 =
    a) -34
    b) 576
    c) 3.14
    d) sheep

    The fact that you can answer b) by applying that 12*48 ~ 10*50 puts you a point ahead of an amoebe regarding maths. And will not help you if the answers were 572, 576, 574 (and if you answered 575 you have to check how pair*pair gives an odd).

    But I was tutoring EE, and was amazed at the fact that people cannot use the same reasoning when they are not given multiple choices. They would tote their calculators, and drag the constant through the equation (even if it cancels out later, and even if, for all engineering purposes it can be approximated like g=10m/s^2), and in the end arrive at the conclusion that the voltage between two points in a simple schema is 12.11V. Completely failing to understand the point that if the batery is 12V NO voltage in the schema can be grater than that. Simple approximated calculation would give them a ballpark estimate of 12V, which would be more correct. Or, what I hate even more, when they don't understand that EE deals with physical elements, with their own abberations and limitations (yes, your TI-89 shows that the voltage on that diode is 3000V, but it is long gone in the puff of blue smoke before it reaches that level).

    Well, that's my pet peeve - people not using common sense.

    (And for nit pickers - yes, voltage can be greater than Vcc if there is an active element, or an element with stored energy like capacitor; but that was not the case with simple Kirchhoff law problems I was trying to explain)

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...