|
Here is the KEY thing to keep in mind when understanding the USA from a foreign perspective.
THE USA IS THE MOST SELF CRITICAL COUNTRY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.
This means, that if we have weaknesses, we don't try and hide them or bury them or anything else other countries would do.... in America, we put those weakness on display for all to see.... and so we, as Americans, feel the shame of our failure.
No other country does this. The cost is, we literally make a mockery of ourselves.
+ Show Spoiler +(Other countries do this, of course they do to some extent, but not to the same degree of world scrutiny)
Americans are openly declared fat, lazy, warmongers who are stupid and superstitious. Do we run from this? No... we accept that we have those qualties, and hopefully our awareness helps to fix them.
Anyways... so how this applies to the University sytem.
University sits on the TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN. So all the bad, or less good... things that make the nightly news about how pathetic American, Americans and the American education system are..... don't make it into the University system, much less the patriarchal university systems. (ie: catholic, ivy league schools, etc).
So you hear about the crap, but because even you hear about it, the people at the top of the scholastic system in the US are able to filter it out.
There are a million little answers to your question, but I think that underlying characteristic of America not hiding our weaknesses makes this possible and might not have been mentioned.
That... and all the brilliant emigrants.... but I'm sure everyone knows that one. America stays on top, because the top people join us. Hopefully that will continue.
|
On September 25 2011 05:04 wherebugsgo wrote:
I mean, you could say that te U.S. didn't invent the wheel either. True statement, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. has been greatly influential in research, since it's completely irrelevant and from a timeperiod in which the country didn't even exist (I.e like half your examples)
Well, tell me one groundbreaking technology the US developed...
You could say "The computer", though that was based on work by the british Charles Babbage.
Rockets for Moonlanding? Based on a theory of the soviet Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and developed by german Engineers (Wernher von Braun).
Nuclear Bombs? The german Albert Einstein.
Cars? Karl Benz, Germany.
Yes, the US has been influential, but putting them above all other countries (like the poster i quoted previously) is just wrong. There are recent developments by the US, but that is very recent and not yet comparable with the rest of the world in a historic context.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
are you seriously questioning the u.s.'s position in research?
granted it's been equalizing, but since post wwii at least the u.s.'s position in research is unquestioned.
|
The U.S. invented the Internet. Your welcome.  hehe.
In all seriousness do we really need to argue about what country's research dick is bigger?
|
The public school system in America is awful, but the private university system is sick, it just costs too much lol
|
On September 25 2011 01:36 Thesidu wrote:
lol americans universities are not that much ahead of the rest of the world infact, most people would consider Cambridge to be the best in the world.
Highly disagree. Cambridge may be the best school in the world, but by no means do "most" people consider it that.
Speaking from experience, a lot of the elite universities in america are comprised of MANY foreigners, especially the grad schools (not new to the thread, but just wanted to emphasize how true this is). Maybe not even say... 10%, but that is still 100x more than than the % of non us citizens at most other schools in the US.
I guess in the end, the US school system is comprised of extremes. There are public schools in northern california that are comparable or better than the best private schools in Florida. There are diploma farms where anyone with money can buy a PHD, and there is Harvard/MIT (private universities, but with a TON of public research funding) where, depending on the program, you have to put in a shitload of work just to get a D where at other programs in the country, and the world, you'd Ace the class.
That being said, we kind of have to define what makes a "good school". Recently it seems like elite universities have become more about attracting the best students as opposed to teaching them. If schools should be about testing the boundaries of knowledge, this is probably the right strategy, ie, get a shitload of smart people together and see what they come up with. But if your education system is more about trying to create some high standard of education across a populace, I'm not sure if this is the right answer.
|
One of the reasons why private American Universities are so prestigious (Ivy League/MIT/Stanford etc.) and have so many resources is because they have massive endowments (to top off their high tuition). This helps fund their research which leads to further changes in the school as well.
I know for example, that Oxford is attempting to copy the American style increasing their endowments since funding is starting to dry up slightly.
|
On September 25 2011 05:20 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 05:04 wherebugsgo wrote:
I mean, you could say that te U.S. didn't invent the wheel either. True statement, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. has been greatly influential in research, since it's completely irrelevant and from a timeperiod in which the country didn't even exist (I.e like half your examples) Well, tell me one groundbreaking technology the US developed... You could say "The computer", though that was based on work by the british Charles Babbage. Rockets for Moonlanding? Based on a theory of the soviet Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and developed by german Engineers (Wernher von Braun). Nuclear Bombs? The german Albert Einstein. Cars? Karl Benz, Germany. Yes, the US has been influential, but putting them above all other countries (like the poster i quoted previously) is just wrong. There are recent developments by the US, but that is very recent and not yet comparable with the rest of the world in a historic context.
An invention isn't just the initial development of something. It's also improvement and collaboration.
No one person "invented" the computer.
No one person or country "invented" rockets for space flight
No one person "invented" nuclear bombs.
No one person "invented" cars.
You're obsessed with this false notion about "inventions," and so you fail to see that it's not just the initial source of an idea that matters. It's also the development of that idea over time, with improvements and modifications.
One can say that people in the United States developed the lightning rod, bifocals, the catheter, the cotton gin, the fire hydrant, Morse Code, the circuit breaker, the rotary printing press, adhesive tape, the pin tumbler lock, etc. etc. and these are all just inventions made during the 1800s.
If you want to discredit the United States just for fun, go ahead, but no one is going to take you seriously. I'm not saying the United States is the sole innovator or source of research in the world, but to deny that it has been important in world history is just pure ignorance.
It's on the same level as biased Americans claiming that Nazi Germany would be the world power had it not been for our intervention in WW2 (for those Americans discrediting the involvement of the Soviet Union and other countries in WW2, for example)
|
On September 25 2011 05:12 dsousa wrote:
This means, that if we have weaknesses, we don't try and hide them or bury them or anything else other countries would do.... in America, we put those weakness on display for all to see.... and so we, as Americans, feel the shame of our failure.
Maybe your language is just too general, but I don't really agree with your conception of Americans (and I am speaking as one). Maybe if you gave some examples? I think if anything, Americans exceptionally prone to not accepting their faults and relying on the top 1% of productive/intellectual creators to make themselves feel like the best country in the world.
Then again, maybe my saying this is proving your point exactly.
That said, one could argue that any nation with more than one political party is prone to showing the faults of the country (obviously caused by the other party).
|
On September 25 2011 06:19 cskalias.pbe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 05:12 dsousa wrote:
This means, that if we have weaknesses, we don't try and hide them or bury them or anything else other countries would do.... in America, we put those weakness on display for all to see.... and so we, as Americans, feel the shame of our failure.
Maybe your language is just too general, but I don't really agree with your conception of Americans (and I am speaking as one). Maybe if you gave some examples? I think if anything, Americans exceptionally prone to not accepting their faults and relying on the top 1% of productive/intellectual creators to make themselves feel like the best country in the world. Then again, maybe my saying this is proving your point exactly. That said, one could argue that any nation with more than one political party is prone to showing the faults of the country (obviously caused by the other party).
I agree with you. In fact the guy you quote even says in his post "No other country does this." If there is something that no country other than the United States does, it's saying the words "No other country does this." As if the average American has the slightest clue about what goes on in other countries, let alone every single country in the world...
|
On September 25 2011 05:20 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 05:04 wherebugsgo wrote:
I mean, you could say that te U.S. didn't invent the wheel either. True statement, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. has been greatly influential in research, since it's completely irrelevant and from a timeperiod in which the country didn't even exist (I.e like half your examples) Well, tell me one groundbreaking technology the US developed... You could say "The computer", though that was based on work by the british Charles Babbage. Rockets for Moonlanding? Based on a theory of the soviet Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and developed by german Engineers (Wernher von Braun). Nuclear Bombs? The german Albert Einstein. Cars? Karl Benz, Germany. Yes, the US has been influential, but putting them above all other countries (like the poster i quoted previously) is just wrong. There are recent developments by the US, but that is very recent and not yet comparable with the rest of the world in a historic context.
Modern America, which had come to the top of the world by importing intellectual developments from around the world, obviously may not be the originators of various technologies, but it is pretty obvious that they have worked upon them tirelessly. The strength of America was never about them being the originators of anything but rather in how they have improved upon things, and through this process have come across original and genius ways of doing things. Of course all of America's developments are recent. The nation's entire history is a goddamned fraction of every other major nation in the entire world. It is a young nation.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 25 2011 02:43 kakaman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 00:44 Jibba wrote:Yes, because a school known for partying means not much else is getting done in the school. No, he doesn't deserve a defense. He's flat out wrong. I mean, I guess the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, a school with 26 Nobel laureates and the place where the internet was invented, should give up their reputation and work because they're listed as a party school. Again, I wrote that I don't think there aren't any talented students at these schools, but the concentration of talent is not comparable to the actual elite schools in America. Not saying there won't be outstanding achievements from public schools, but it is silly to compare them to actual elite institutions in America. There is a different college experience when the overwhelming majority of your peers is noteworthy, vs. 1 out of X in the student body. I've experienced this first hand, so I stand by this. I've also met some smart students who preferred going to a public university due to tuition, proximity to home, etc., but those are pretty rare cases.
First, none of this is what you actually said. You said "a school known for partying means not much else is getting done in the school." And then you made a terrible list of admissions data to prove... something. That Cornell is more exclusive than the University of Vermont, I guess. Wow. Shocking. Huge correlation to... ?
And now you're saying "it is silly to compare them to actual elite institutions in America." So public universities, like UT-Austin or the University of Michigan, are incomparable to actual elite institutions? I hope you don't have any relatives near Austin with Cancer, because it would be a shame if they were forced to go to the #1 cancer research/treating hospital in the world at UT-Austin. And boy it would suck if you had some cousins in central California who didn't have the money to fly across the country to attend a prestigious, elite institution such as Brown. Instead, they might be forced to go to a yucky public school, such as Cal Berkley with its top 5 in the world business school and every single engineering school.
You're pissing on your own leg, guy.
Also, this thread has turned out horribly. It's turned into a pissing contest (pissing on kakaman is ok, though) about totally stupid shit, and most of what's posted here is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and a lot of it is downright ignorant. The question is simple: why do American universities excel (private and public, it doesn't fucking matter) while the grade school system does poorly? Pretty much everyone should accept that there is a large disparity between the two's average performances - larger than that of any other first world country - and that's why it's an intriguing question.
Can any of you try sticking to that question? It's not just because of foreigners in American universities...
|
On September 25 2011 00:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, because a school known for partying means not much else is getting done in the school. No, he doesn't deserve a defense. He's flat out wrong. I mean, I guess the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, a school with 26 Nobel laureates and the place where the internet was invented, should give up their reputation and work because they're listed as a party school.
haha, says flat out wrong then says an american invented the internet
<3
best troll of all time
ok ill be nice, as much as the web is a group of technologies and cant be attributed easily to one person, time berners lee is internationally regarded as the 'inventor of the internet' while working with others at cern. im sure you are gonna come back citing some american version of internet which was first but its such a pedantic subject because it depends on what you define as the internet compared to modern standards
On September 25 2011 05:49 Slaughter wrote:The U.S. invented the Internet. Your welcome. hehe. In all seriousness do we really need to argue about what country's research dick is bigger?
america has been trying to out do the european colonialism dick for many years now, why stop there 
|
I think we put a lot more emphasis on higher education than we do on lower education. Contrary to what a few people said, a lot of universities are public, too, but America sends its smart people to college. It sends its smartest people to be professors at those colleges. Public schools, on the other hand, are generally the first thing hit in budget cuts, and the salaries of teachers even at the best of times are not enough to attract smart people.
If a smart, capable person becomes an elementary, middle, or high school teacher, it is because they thought they could do the most good there, not because they thought someone would reward them for it. Education suffers as a result. Professors, on the other hand, are compensated well, and universities public and private get tons of money from society besides tuition, either in tax dollars or donations. We excel where we invest money and lag behind where we don't; go figure.
|
The problem with schooling in America is all money. Not that they don't have enough money, but that they have too much. They waste SO much money, keeping terrible teachers employed because lol tenure and unions. Further, the way funding works, they are encouraged to spend every last cent, because their funding for next year is lower if they don't spend all of it this year. This makes even more incentive to not cut terrible teachers and other faculty.
Teachers need to be payed by how well their students do, not seniority. Further, if students do TOO poorly, they get fired.
Next, they need to cut BS classes, like gym, and reading, and make other slightly less BS classes, like art, electives. This would save them even MORE money.
With the drastically improved funding these changes would provide, they could stop wasting their money on nonsense, and spend on things that actually help.
On September 25 2011 07:17 ChristianS wrote:
I think we put a lot more emphasis on higher education than we do on lower education. Contrary to what a few people said, a lot of universities are public, too, but America sends its smart people to college. It sends its smartest people to be professors at those colleges. Public schools, on the other hand, are generally the first thing hit in budget cuts, and the salaries of teachers even at the best of times are not enough to attract smart people.
If a smart, capable person becomes an elementary, middle, or high school teacher, it is because they thought they could do the most good there, not because they thought someone would reward them for it. Education suffers as a result. Professors, on the other hand, are compensated well, and universities public and private get tons of money from society besides tuition, either in tax dollars or donations. We excel where we invest money and lag behind where we don't; go figure.
Teachers are payed WAY better than most people expect. At my school, which is both public and not in some super-affluent area, the WORST teachers made 70-80k. That's more than some of my professors in college make.
The pay doesn't need increased across the board, it needs increased for good teachers.
|
It's actually a very simple answer. You get paid more to work at most schools in the states than you do in other countries, this has to do with funding and tuition costs. So the top researchers from many fields who want to earn more money come to the US. The public school system has no financial backing. That's it. There is hardly any money going to the public education infrastructure in the US, so if you want a good education you have to pay out the ass for it--which pays for the teachers and professors.
I would also disagree with the premise that the US has the best schools in the world. Maybe 5 schools in the US are top-of-the-world class, and that's generous.
|
On September 25 2011 06:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 06:19 cskalias.pbe wrote:On September 25 2011 05:12 dsousa wrote:
This means, that if we have weaknesses, we don't try and hide them or bury them or anything else other countries would do.... in America, we put those weakness on display for all to see.... and so we, as Americans, feel the shame of our failure.
Maybe your language is just too general, but I don't really agree with your conception of Americans (and I am speaking as one). Maybe if you gave some examples? I think if anything, Americans exceptionally prone to not accepting their faults and relying on the top 1% of productive/intellectual creators to make themselves feel like the best country in the world. Then again, maybe my saying this is proving your point exactly. That said, one could argue that any nation with more than one political party is prone to showing the faults of the country (obviously caused by the other party). I agree with you. In fact the guy you quote even says in his post "No other country does this." If there is something that no country other than the United States does, it's saying the words "No other country does this." As if the average American has the slightest clue about what goes on in other countries, let alone every single country in the world...
no other country can see russia from their house
|
United States24782 Posts
On September 25 2011 07:24 Millitron wrote:
Teachers need to be payed by how well their students do, not seniority. Further, if students do TOO poorly, they get fired.
It's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on most things regarding this issue but I'm just curious: how is it determined how well your students need to do in order to not get fired, get paid more, etc? From what I've seen it's nearly impossible to come up with a fair system that takes into account the relative strengths of each class and other factors (besides the teacher) that affect student performance on specific standardized tests.
|
On September 25 2011 07:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 07:24 Millitron wrote:
Teachers need to be payed by how well their students do, not seniority. Further, if students do TOO poorly, they get fired. It's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on most things regarding this issue but I'm just curious: how is it determined how well your students need to do in order to not get fired, get paid more, etc? From what I've seen it's nearly impossible to come up with a fair system that takes into account the relative strengths of each class and other factors (besides the teacher) that affect student performance on specific standardized tests.
I would say have it set up so that you need a certain percent to pass your class's standardized test, with that percent being lower for more difficult classes. Late high-school or AP classes would require a lower percent than intro courses, since it can be expected that more people would struggle with harder classes.
Bonus pay would not be provided based on a certain percentage doing well, but rather the exact percent. So teachers whose students pass with all A's get more bonus pay than teachers whose students pass with B's or C's.
I'm not familiar with any statistical analysis really, but I would imagine there would be a way to figure out the percentages mathematically.
The only thing I'm not sure how to deal with is the effect of previous years of schooling on the students. It wouldn't be fair to punish a late high-school teacher whose students did poorly because they didn't learn some fundamental thing an earlier teacher was supposed to teach them.
|
my take on the disparity between levels of US education is that it's largely one of image, not reality. public schools are hated in popular culture, even by good students, because of a variety of factors (bad teachers, poor disciplinary practices, being coupled with students who are either inferior or superior, the brute amount of time spent, etc). on the other hand, movies & tv make college out to be most adults' fondest memories--and the collegiate culture of experimentation, freedom, and irresponsibility helps make it a place with a lot of positive memories.
the truth is, in both levels there are shit students & teachers, and brilliant students & teachers. i really don't think the disparity exists in reality as much as our culture perceives.
as for why american universities tend to be more well-regarded than foreign universities, i'd point to the US government throwing trillions of dollars--annually--at military & medical research. not all of that money is dumped on US universities (hello, defense contractors), but a hell of a lot of it is--and that money pot attracts foreigners who would otherwise be working at the broke-ass universities in their own countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
