I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Some the University bit is prestige, but you also have to remember that the public school system is...public. The Universities are not, there curriculum, the people they hire and the resources at their disposal are entirely different.
Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
I like to think that since English is the standard international language, American colleges have more pull than in countries where english is not the primary (or rather, only) language spoken on a regular basis.
For one you have not only be exceptionally good when applying to say Harvard, MIT, Stanford. You also pay ridiculous amounts of money. And where money is, there opportunities are. For better teaching, resources, buildings, experiments, equipment. This is only one tiny thing, there's more to it making it even better and better.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
that's not even close to true. A huge number of universities in america are public. Every single "____ State university" and "University of ______" is a public university.
I'm from north carolina, and UNC, NCSU, East Carolina, Western, App State, All of the UNC Affiliates etc (UNC C, UNC W, UNC G) are all public universities.
they get massive funding from the state and whatnot.
Private ones are schools like Duke, and the Ivy leagues (not to say that they are few in number, there's a LOT of them), but there's a TON of public universities in america.
As far as public primary schooling goes, i feel like a lot of the problem results from people wanting to send their kids to "good schools." Clearly you want what's best for your children, but there's little help that comes to the underprivileged schools to get them out of their rut.
If teachers make it into a good school, they pretty much set up camp forever, and try to not ever leave. There's little incentive for teachers in poor schools to stay (They could even be reprimanded for the poor performance of their classes), and so they try to get jobs in better systems, and basically move up the chain.
i feel like once under privileged schools get more of a boost, or rather, a better mixing system is implemented so you don't have as many clear lines on the map, the public system will get a lot better than it is.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech, west point(which is as public as it gets) I'm sure given time i could think up more.
The answer is simply that everyone goes to school in America, whether they care to or not. There are far more slackers than serious students. The top universities that you speak of are largely populated by students who WANT to be there, and are very serious about learning so they can accellerate their career. That makes all the difference in the world.
I can't comment as much on the situation in other countries cause I dont have firsthand experience.
On September 24 2011 01:49 [Agony]x90 wrote: I like to think that since English is the standard international language, American colleges have more pull than in countries where english is not the primary (or rather, only) language spoken on a regular basis.
This and getting the English academic tradition through culture heritage isnt bad either. Being the worlds only Superpower sure helps termendously as well. I would imagine that in the future many European universites will catch up to the top level American universites due to English being so widespread. China surely has potential as well but the language barrier is most likely still a bit to severe. That being said a lot of the American hightech universitys researchers and the researchers in silicon valley are Asian.
On September 24 2011 01:56 Apocalyptic wrote: The answer is simply that everyone goes to school in America, whether they care to or not. There are far more slackers than serious students. The top universities that you speak of are largely populated by students who WANT to be there, and are very serious about learning so they can accellerate their career. That makes all the difference in the world.
And you think this is not the case in the rest of the developed world ? I dont follow.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
Well the US does have public universities, of which some are very highly ranked, like UCLA. The best university in Australia, ANU is also public.
Although "public" is a bit of a misnomer since the operation of the university isn't decided by government, but it's still funded by government.
However, if the school system is so bad, surely that would have an effect on the level of education of the students at start of university, and it seems this should have a flow on effect. I'm not convinced this can explain bad universities in Asian countries with good schools.
And you think this is not the case in the rest of the developed world ? I dont follow.
I don't know about other countries, but I have been to both school and a good university in America and I am certain this is a large percentage of why the schools suck but some unis are good.
There is a positive feedback loop, as well. The best and brightest go to a university like MIT. He goes on to make a great discovery. Thus adding to the prestige of the university. Which makes the university more attractive to the next generation of the best and brightest. And so it goes on.
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
Lower education is criticized for its quality, and higher education is criticized for its cost. In reality, higher education in the US is good quality, and that is why it is ranked so highly. However, it is very expensive, and that ushers in an entirely different set of issues and problems to address. Certain universities being public does not mean they are run the same as high schools that are public. I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the quality of education in general. You've got to separate the lower and higher levels of education, and then you can look at the shortcomings and good parts of each.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
that's not even close to true. A huge number of universities in america are public. Every single "____ State university" and "University of ______" is a public university.
So University of Southern California is Private.
A big difference has to do with who pays and choice. Students can go whereever they get in and in most cases students and parents are paying a considerable amount of money even in states like NC where it is heavily subsidized. This promotes competition amongst the universities and ensures that the students that are there want to be there.
With the high schools, there is little to no choice from the students and parents and it costs basicaly nothing to go. This leaves schools with students who do not want to be there.
Also, unlike many European highschool systems there is very little segregation by scholastic ability/achievement. All the kids are thrown into one school. This is much different than Germany's Gymnasium system which separates the top students.
It has to do with what it means for schools to be "bad". It doesn't mean that all schools are bad, just the majority. A minority of people with a lot of money go to the minority of very good schools and then have better chances of getting to (and affording) Ivy League colleges . If you don't have a lot of money, I think it's hard to get a good education.
EDIT: I may be wrong about expensive private schools. But I think that the better schools are often in more affluent areas, which would have the same effect.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Universities have to compete with other universities all over the world to get students. Even publicly funded universities enjoy a large amount of freedom in how they conduct their business, and are really only accountable to the government on a macro level (i.e. are you going bankrupt or not).
Our primary and secondary public school system has none of this competition. Kids go to the school closest to where they live, and school funding is based on simple attendance and whether or not kids can demonstrate the most basic of reading and math skills.
I'd still be interested to know if anyone has a theory of why Asian countries with top achievement math and science high school scores have such bad universities compared to the US.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Public means its funded by the public, ex. tax payer's money / government.
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
That is true but it is untrue to say that most students at a given school are international. There may be more international diversity within US universities than any other country, but there is still an overwhelming US-based student body at schools.
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
I knew a few each year that i was at UNC, it wasn't quite an overwhelming amount, but there'd always be at least like, one or two guys on the hall who'd be an exch student from somewhere else.
I feel like part of the issue though is that kids in high school don't receive a ton of positive feedback to perform well.
They either show up to class and coast through, or they basically get the vibe that studying is "lame" and shouldn't bother with it. A lot of parents for our generation had less than stellar school experiences, so if kids bring home a bunch of Cs and a D, the parents don't get upset, because they figure, "i got similar grades and turned out just fine." so there sometimes isn't quite as much of a pressure from the parents / society to turn things around.
The schools that have kids flunking out and not passing aren't ever the same parents who get up in arms at PTA meetings about how the US is terrible at school.
For example: The wake county (County i grew up in in NC) system is (relatively) good for public schooling. I went to a decent public school and went to Carolina for university.
Our parents at the school would always complain about how north carolina was like, 48th in the nation in education. I had a few friends at some other schools in counties who were performing worse, and their parents literally did not care.
Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, based on a microscopic sample size, but i feel like there's something you can pull from that, even if only a little bit.
It's not a paradox. The smartest kids from the schools around the world apply to, are accepted to, and attend top American universities. Some even prefer to attend lower tier (top 25-50+) schools in America over schools in their home nation. The same goes for Cambridge/Oxford and perhaps a few others, but since America has so many more "top" schools in this regard, this phenomenon is seen as an American thing. It's a positive feedback cycle.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Are there government loans for the cost of going to university in the US?
In Australia, all students are able to get government loans for the tuition fees, which are automatically taken out of tax when you get a job later on. So essentially, all universities are free (or at least it feels that way).
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. .
Ok that's interesting, can you give your factual evidence for this please? You can send me a pm with the data or post it in this thread, thank you!
OnT:
It's partly due to money, American universities make alot of money through high tuition fees. As some people stated above, the English language is a big advantage, they can attract talent from all over the world. Another reason is the fact that almost of all of the scientific research in America is conducted at universities, this is not the case in Europe, I don't know how it is with Asian universities. In Europe most of the important research is done at institutes of various kinds, the result of this research wont show up in university rankings. If European research was done at universities like in America, you would see alot of universities from Europe high up in the rankings.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Public means its funded by the public, ex. tax payer's money / government.
They're also substantially cheaper if you're an in-state student. Like, i went to UNC, being from NC, i paid a LOT less than if i lived in say, virginia, or any other state.
Since i'm a resident to the state, i'm already paying to support the school with my taxes, and so i basically get a break when going to that school. If i went out of school, i'd be going to a school i hadn't supported, and so i'd be hit up for the max bill they'll give to someone for the school.
If i'd gone to a private school, it also would have been substantially more expensive (b/c they don't receive funding from anyone, so i'd basically be paying out of state tuition no matter what state i'm from).
So there is some incentive to go to an in-state public school, it's not just that they get a bunch of money from the gvmt
This isn't a paradox at all, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and many others are made by a ton of bright foreigners(that were invited, most don't pay anything at all) that brought all those nobels and what not to the universities names.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Public means its funded by the public, ex. tax payer's money / government.
True, but they still cost a good amount of money, especially if you are not from the state they are located.
I don't think anybody can deny that the American school system is shit, particularly not after seeing Waiting for Superman. That movie's just depressing.
On a more 'on-topic note,' what everyone else is saying pretty much hits the nail straight on the head. Universities and Colleges (are they the exact same thing?) charge pretty hefty tuition, and really good ones get positive feedback which gives them more prestige (like vetinari said).
I think another huge factor is that the students are often times making amazing discoveries. In high school and everything below, the schools are purely teaching and making friends with your peers while doing so. In places like UCLA, Harvard, MIT, and the real genius-y places, the students oftentimes outshine their teachers. And even if they don't, you still hear about researchers from x university making amazing y discovery.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
that's not even close to true. A huge number of universities in america are public. Every single "____ State university" and "University of ______" is a public university.
I'm from north carolina, and UNC, NCSU, East Carolina, Western, App State, All of the UNC Affiliates etc (UNC C, UNC W, UNC G) are all public universities.
they get massive funding from the state and whatnot.
Private ones are schools like Duke, and the Ivy leagues (not to say that they are few in number, there's a LOT of them), but there's a TON of public universities in america.
As far as public primary schooling goes, i feel like a lot of the problem results from people wanting to send their kids to "good schools." Clearly you want what's best for your children, but there's little help that comes to the underprivileged schools to get them out of their rut.
If teachers make it into a good school, they pretty much set up camp forever, and try to not ever leave. There's little incentive for teachers in poor schools to stay (They could even be reprimanded for the poor performance of their classes), and so they try to get jobs in better systems, and basically move up the chain.
i feel like once under privileged schools get more of a boost, or rather, a better mixing system is implemented so you don't have as many clear lines on the map, the public system will get a lot better than it is.
Pretty much this. The US is a big place and not all areas are particularly well-to-do obviously. Even with public schools it can be hit or miss; for instance, I'm also from NC, I went to public school, but I feel like I received a fantastic education. At Apex we had a brilliant calculus teacher who cared about her students more than anyone I've ever encountered, and a history teacher almost as good (all others were more than acceptable). Our extra-curricular activities were great, and I had a chance to be a part of a state championship winning team. However, Apex is a nice little (well used to be) town that's been on the upswing the last 15 years; there are many places in the state that aren't so fortunate, and like you said there isn't a whole lot of motivation for good/dedicated teachers to go there.
On September 24 2011 02:08 Zaros wrote: Well number one university in the world is Cambridge, so America doesnt have the "best" university in the world, GO UK!
Well the rankings from various sources vary from year to year, but I think I saw someone post in a different thread that Harvard took #1 this year, but don't hold me to it. Still, I think anyone would be more than happy with either.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Are there government loans for the cost of going to university in the US?
In Australia, all students are able to get government loans for the tuition fees, which are automatically taken out of tax when you get a job later on. So essentially, all universities are free (or at least it feels that way).
Is there any similar program for US universities?
You're able to get student loans either from the government, or from banks etc. They're usually 0% while you're attending the school, and for a little time after, as long as you're paying them back. but if you drag your feet for a really long time paying them back / whatever, you'll start to get charged interest.
The universities are definitely not free, and at no point do they feel free, i know a lot of kids right now who are struggling with the debt that is levied upon them by their student loans, i was well off enough that i didn't need to take any out, but it's definitely something that you feel.
There are also a TON of tiny little scholarships (for anything from 50.00 - 20,000 dollars), that'll help pay for things like food and books to full tuition and all kinds of things. you just have to look really hard for some of them. local churches etc often provide little ones to help buy books, and if you stack a couple of those together, you can get a big burden of your tuition paid off by scholarships
I don't fully trust such rankings. This might be because Germany regularly "fails" both in school and university rankings.
But: Countries have different opinions what school/universities should deliver. Therefore researchers from different countries obviously apply different criteria. Not long ago, I've seen a ranking that compares universities purely based on number of publications. In our media at least this was once more translated into "German universities suck". I mean, seriously: Did anyone ask if research happens to an equal precentage in universities in every country? Here we have quite a lot of scientific institutes which are formally not part of universities, but purely do research. But dose that mean our universities are worse, just because they fulfill a different role than say in the US? (yes they probably are, but not as much as it sometimes seems imho)
Another example: German education in school dedicates a lot of time turning children into responsable tolerant democratic citizens with a broad horizon. I guess if we would spend this time learning math instead, our schools would be better in math than they are now. Now guess what happens if you compare german schools to chinese. We will be worse in most objectively measureable categories. But I don't mind it.
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
I knew a few each year that i was at UNC, it wasn't quite an overwhelming amount, but there'd always be at least like, one or two guys on the hall who'd be an exch student from somewhere else.
I feel like part of the issue though is that kids in high school don't receive a ton of positive feedback to perform well.
They either show up to class and coast through, or they basically get the vibe that studying is "lame" and shouldn't bother with it. A lot of parents for our generation had less than stellar school experiences, so if kids bring home a bunch of Cs and a D, the parents don't get upset, because they figure, "i got similar grades and turned out just fine." so there sometimes isn't quite as much of a pressure from the parents / society to turn things around.
The schools that have kids flunking out and not passing aren't ever the same parents who get up in arms at PTA meetings about how the US is terrible at school.
For example: The wake county (County i grew up in in NC) system is (relatively) good for public schooling. I went to a decent public school and went to Carolina for university.
Our parents at the school would always complain about how north carolina was like, 48th in the nation in education. I had a few friends at some other schools in counties who were performing worse, and their parents literally did not care.
Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, based on a microscopic sample size, but i feel like there's something you can pull from that, even if only a little bit.
I feel this is true as well. The major problem with lower education in the US is that the majority of our society doesn't value it. We spend more money on education per capita than many other nations, and in the end it comes down to the fact that most kids don't care about learning.
A lot of people come from foreign countries for college here. So a lot of the brightest students from all other countries are likely to come here to continue their education. Also the "paradox" you speak of sounds like its exaggerated and based off a few peoples opinions you've talked to.
Also keep in mind there are private schools for elementary-highschool. So a lot of wealthier people send their kids their. Id imagine a lot of those kids go to the tip top schools.
And while its true that some public schools suck, there are also some very good public schools in america. Public schools are funded from the state, not the federal government. As well as I believe property tax. So if there's a lot of money in an area then the school will be better. Places like the south and public schools in the inner cities will (generally) be much worse in terms of value of education.
On September 24 2011 02:08 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: I don't think anybody can deny that the American school system is shit, particularly not after seeing Waiting for Superman. That movie's just depressing.
On a more 'on-topic note,' what everyone else is saying pretty much hits the nail straight on the head. Universities and Colleges (are they the exact same thing?) charge pretty hefty tuition, and really good ones get positive feedback which gives them more prestige (like vetinari said).
I think another huge factor is that the students are often times making amazing discoveries. In high school and everything below, the schools are purely teaching and making friends with your peers while doing so. In places like UCLA, Harvard, MIT, and the real genius-y places, the students oftentimes outshine their teachers. And even if they don't, you still hear about researchers from x university making amazing y discovery.
Uni & college are more or less the same. The terms are used interchangeably, but i think that technically a school's a university when it offers multiple schools that you can get degrees from (like MD, School of business, school of...biology?) and and official colleges are a little bit smaller and have fewer options.
but like i said, at least casually, the terms are used interchangeably. in fact, almost no one (at least where i'm from) says they go to university, we all say we went to college at _______
On September 24 2011 02:02 trainRiderJ wrote: Universities have to compete with other universities all over the world to get students. Even publicly funded universities enjoy a large amount of freedom in how they conduct their business, and are really only accountable to the government on a macro level (i.e. are you going bankrupt or not).
Our primary and secondary public school system has none of this competition. Kids go to the school closest to where they live, and school funding is based on simple attendance and whether or not kids can demonstrate the most basic of reading and math skills.
All you pointed out the difference between people wanting to go to school and people not really having that choice.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Public means its funded by the public, ex. tax payer's money / government.
True, but they still cost a good amount of money, especially if you are not from the state they are located.
Well the only federal universities are like west point ie military, subsiding education is done via the state and so if you're out of state you haven't been paying for it.
On September 24 2011 02:06 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Are there government loans for the cost of going to university in the US?
In Australia, all students are able to get government loans for the tuition fees, which are automatically taken out of tax when you get a job later on. So essentially, all universities are free (or at least it feels that way).
Is there any similar program for US universities?
FAFSA i suppose would be it, not really free unless you attend a state college and are in a lower income bracket at which point between grants, scholarships etc you can essentially make it free. But not at university but hell government student loans are so low interest it doesn't hurt too much esp if you land a job to pay it off in due time(ie don't become a teacher XD)
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The simple reason is, in nearly every country but the United States of America, school is where you go to learn what you need to study and get into college. That is to say, primary and secondary schools are only stepping stones to higher education.
In the USA K-12 primary and secondary schooling's main focus is NOT purely academic. In fact, a student who JUST gets straight A's and lacks a social life and club activity participation is considered a failure by this system. Most USA primary/secondary education systems are focused on creating individuals who can cooperate with others in their community to create a harmonious civil society. America is the home to progressive schooling, and so that's what it focuses on.
The main problem with this is that school becomes a sort of evil microcosm of Lord of the Flies bullshit.... which is pretty much inevitable when you throw together children and tell them to form society.... but hell, it works better than any school system in the world (arguably, of course) at creating individuals that simply mesh well with society. Basically it's the thinking that multifaceted learning is more important than factual learning or even critical thinking, because no matter how intelligent an individual is, without the social prowess and team play that must be otherwise learned is pointless. (Thusly American education is required until the end of highschool/dropping out of highschool, and is mostly free, because the student is an investment to the civility of society as a whole)
University on the other hand has the VAST majority of it's resources placed onto cultivating that already multifacted mind into a single subject... and USA universities have the most freedom of any universities in the world, subjects are highly varied and majors are completely unimportant when it comes to Undergrad until Junior year. Grad schools are even MORE laser sight focused. Why? Because the ONLY goal is thoroughly enriching a mind and creating the best specimen of that science possible. (Universities loosely base tuition costs off of academic achievement because a successful student means an influential alumnus that allow them to become MORE cost efficient... as a business)
When you have a statistical ground as large as America, certain statistical anomalies, especially unfiltered ones like this, are bound to occur. In reality, there really is no paradox, but mere variation and pluralization.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech, west point(which is as public as it gets) I'm sure given time i could think up more.
This is a discussion about good universities. Please stay on topic.
On September 24 2011 02:07 TYJ.Aoy wrote: This isn't a paradox at all, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and many others are made by a ton of bright foreigners(that were invited, most don't pay anything at all) that brought all those nobels and what not to the universities names.
Not really true at all.
There's a lot of international students, depending on the school and major/program, but you're portraying it as if it's only them succeeding which is completely false.
Statistics about the American public school system only represent the average, and when the issue is top universities, generally 'the average' doesn't apply. The scope of America's grade school quality is enormous, and probably greater than any other first world country.
On September 24 2011 02:06 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 02:01 SnapCall wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:55 semantics wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech. I'm sure given time i could think up more.
so what does public mean? are those free/ close to free to attend? i always thought american universities are good cause they are so expensive.
Are there government loans for the cost of going to university in the US?
In Australia, all students are able to get government loans for the tuition fees, which are automatically taken out of tax when you get a job later on. So essentially, all universities are free (or at least it feels that way).
Is there any similar program for US universities?
You're able to get student loans either from the government, or from banks etc. They're usually 0% while you're attending the school, and for a little time after, as long as you're paying them back. but if you drag your feet for a really long time paying them back / whatever, you'll start to get charged interest.
The universities are definitely not free, and at no point do they feel free, i know a lot of kids right now who are struggling with the debt that is levied upon them by their student loans, i was well off enough that i didn't need to take any out, but it's definitely something that you feel.
There are also a TON of tiny little scholarships (for anything from 50.00 - 20,000 dollars), that'll help pay for things like food and books to full tuition and all kinds of things. you just have to look really hard for some of them. local churches etc often provide little ones to help buy books, and if you stack a couple of those together, you can get a big burden of your tuition paid off by scholarships
In addition, unlike in australia, where you don't have to pay back HECS unless you are making decent money, you have to pay the interest no matter what. In addition, student loans in the US are at commercial interest rates, unlike HECS, which is merely indexed to inflation. The universities, especially the good ones, are also far more expensive than ours.
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
I knew a few each year that i was at UNC, it wasn't quite an overwhelming amount, but there'd always be at least like, one or two guys on the hall who'd be an exch student from somewhere else.
I feel like part of the issue though is that kids in high school don't receive a ton of positive feedback to perform well.
They either show up to class and coast through, or they basically get the vibe that studying is "lame" and shouldn't bother with it. A lot of parents for our generation had less than stellar school experiences, so if kids bring home a bunch of Cs and a D, the parents don't get upset, because they figure, "i got similar grades and turned out just fine." so there sometimes isn't quite as much of a pressure from the parents / society to turn things around.
The schools that have kids flunking out and not passing aren't ever the same parents who get up in arms at PTA meetings about how the US is terrible at school.
For example: The wake county (County i grew up in in NC) system is (relatively) good for public schooling. I went to a decent public school and went to Carolina for university.
Our parents at the school would always complain about how north carolina was like, 48th in the nation in education. I had a few friends at some other schools in counties who were performing worse, and their parents literally did not care.
Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, based on a microscopic sample size, but i feel like there's something you can pull from that, even if only a little bit.
I feel this is true as well. The major problem with lower education in the US is that the majority of our society doesn't value it. We spend more money on education per capita than many other nations, and in the end it comes down to the fact that most kids don't care about learning.
And to be honest, i feel like a lot of it (unfortunately) comes from segregation back in the early-mid 1900s. since schools were basically turned down into schools for blacks, and schools for whites.
i know in wake county we recently had a huge to-do, because our school board just voted to go back to neighborhood schools (as opposed to actively trying to mix schools from various socio-economic backgrounds), and just send all kids to the school that's closest to them. While it kind of makes sense, it also lets everything fall into clearly defined, these are the good schools with rich kids, and these are the poor kids.
The poorer kids will tend to get poorer funding, less attention, and thus, be less of a draw for teachers, eventually putting the whole school down below the richer schools.
American schools used to be about educating children, now they are about churning out docile workers.
That is all.
Tech schools and doctors are still fine, but half the time you end up in a nonproductive service job or as a mailman with your degree. Tuition has been steadily increasing far beyond the rate of inflation; many Americans are fooled into taking out student loans that they end up never being able to repay.
I'd say it all started going downhill in 1963 after a certain court case threw creation out of school and introduced New Age textbooks and United Nations curriculum to our schools.
The American school system has many problems, but in general is still pretty great. The reason we don't test in the top 5 or 10 or whatever is because we test everyone, where other systems do not.
It is also plagued by a decline in morality and parenting and english speaking students, which ruins the learning experience of many kids and drives costs up.
It is also plagued by teachers unions who make it virtually impossible to fire a bad teacher once they get tenure.
I would say that the majority of schools are pretty good Maybe 10-20% have severe problems.
Its the same as having a rich as hell sports team like the yankees that buy up all the best players. Well endowed universities can gobble up all the intellectuals. As I understand it, outside of the US, colleges are mostly public and free.
But outside of the oldest and wealthiest universities, I would say the quality of education doesn't vary all that wildly. Its a for-profit market, so there is a lot of hype and advertising surrounding most American schools.
The question you have to ask yourself (unless your dream is to learn economics from the head of the federal reserve or something) is if you are willing to lease yourself into debt slavery for 20 years for the privilege of having a higher "prestige" level on your resume coming out of college. No thanks. Go to public university. CUNY is awesome.
American schools used to be about educating children, now they are about churning out docile workers.
That is all.
Tech schools and doctors are still fine, but half the time you end up in a nonproductive service job or as a mailman with your degree. Tuition has been steadily increasing far beyond the rate of inflation; many Americans are fooled into taking out student loans that they end up never being able to repay.
I'd say it all started going downhill in 1963 after a certain court case threw creation out of school and introduced New Age textbooks and United Nations curriculum to our schools.
Hrmm, i feel like that might be an overly simplistic view about what's going on.
Which court case are you talking about in particular? I'm afraid i haven't memorized what took place when (and don't know a whole ton to begin with :-/)
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The simple reason is, in nearly every country but the United States of America, school is where you go to learn what you need to study and get into college. That is to say, primary and secondary schools are only stepping stones to higher education.
In the USA K-12 primary and secondary schooling's main focus is NOT purely academic. In fact, a student who JUST gets straight A's and lacks a social life and club activity participation is considered a failure by this system. Most USA primary/secondary education systems are focused on creating individuals who can cooperate with others in their community to create a harmonious civil society. America is the home to progressive schooling, and so that's what it focuses on.
The main problem with this is that school becomes a sort of evil microcosm of Lord of the Flies bullshit.... which is pretty much inevitable when you throw together children and tell them to form society.... but hell, it works better than any school system in the world (arguably, of course) at creating individuals that simply mesh well with society. Basically it's the thinking that multifaceted learning is more important than factual learning or even critical thinking, because no matter how intelligent an individual is, without the social prowess and team play that must be otherwise learned is pointless. (Thusly American education is required until the end of highschool/dropping out of highschool, and is mostly free, because the student is an investment to the civility of society as a whole)
University on the other hand has the VAST majority of it's resources placed onto cultivating that already multifacted mind into a single subject... and USA universities have the most freedom of any universities in the world, subjects are highly varied and majors are completely unimportant when it comes to Undergrad until Junior year. Grad schools are even MORE laser sight focused. Why? Because the ONLY goal is thoroughly enriching a mind and creating the best specimen of that science possible. (Universities loosely base tuition costs off of academic achievement because a successful student means an influential alumnus that allow them to become MORE cost efficient... as a business)
Yes, I minor in educational philosophy >.<
In not so convoluted terms you're pointing out the difference in that in american schools the student's opinion/voice has value versus in other countries esp asian countries only the teacher is looked upon for knowledge. As in asians schools you wont see too much of group projects or student presentations to the class but rather just lectures?
Can someone maybe explain how this rankings form and which things they take into account to "score" a university. Is it research or teaching or money or a combination of this things + something i haven't thought of (if someone knows i'd also be interested in how exactly research is measured because there i can't imagine a good system).
first off I give 0 credibility to international ranking of schools, schools and countries cheat and there is no governing body to keep this clean.
In america there is a great disparity between good schools and bad school though. Most large cities have trouble funding the enormous amount of public schools(politicians would rather stuff their own pocketbooks than educate children) and the quality of those school's suffer. However rich suburbs are plagued with overpaid under-worked staffers and those schools are seen as very good.(talking about k-12) Since the majority of people live in large cities, the majority of these statistics are going to be from those, not as well run inner-city school systems.(it's not unheard of for poor inner city school systems to have sub 50% graduation rate, while rich suburb rates are often 99%+) The problem with the Us system is the great disparity between the rich and the poor, I graduated in 2005, and the high school i went to was in a rich suburb, we had 50 inch plasma screen tvs around the hallways that just said the date and the time, and the score of last weeks football game. As well as plasma screens in 80% of the classrooms(our computer art class receives 30 brand new top of the line Apple Pro Desktop computers every other year, the old ones are given to the middle schools after they have been used for 2 years). That was in 2002-05, I cringe to think of the things they have found to waste money on now a days. Meanwhile one of our competitor schools downtown has a insect/rodent problem and often has to be shut down so exterminator crews can come in and make the school safe for children to go to,(these schools are 15 miles apart as a bird flies) as well as they have a huge problem with teacher:student ratios, downtown, 35+ students per teacher/class, my school had a 20 students per class rule. The cost of going to these school is no different, the only difference is where you live in proximity to the school zones, its disgusting imo.
Now as per universities, It's more of an america just has more prestigious schools than any-other country. If you look at some of the top universities in the US:
MIT Stanford Harvard Princeton Yale Columbia CAL-Tech Duke U of Chicago PENN UW-Madison Northwestern Brown John Hopkins Cornell Berkely (sorry if i missed your school there are so many)
Many of these schools have upwards of 20% international students (most schools have atleast 7% international students with these numbers rising about every 10 years)some, and most have many international Professors as well. This makes them not just American Schools, but International universities imo. These schools have huge alum bases with millions if not billions of money flowing into them every-year. At this point in the international education scene, its pretty hard for an upstart school in say china, or europe to compete with an institution that is worth billions of dollars and has a hundred years of good reviews.
One thing to note though, This high prestige has actually made it harder for most americans to get into their own schools. (http://politisite.com/2011/09/16/university-of-wisconsin-madison-admissions-favor-blacks-and-hispanics-over-whites-and-asian/) is a report at my local school that white students are being turned away for black/hispanic/international students. My cousin was class president at his high school and had a 3.8 gpa with a decent 28 act score, he was turned away by UW-Madison(he later got in after going to a smaller UW school for a year), although its very common for minority students with 3.0+ gpas to be accepted, im assuming this is happening at other prestigious universities as well. It's possible that this is a trend in american culture where we are simply selling our spots at prestigious schools to rich foreigners with big pocketbooks, maybe instead of manufacturing products, now america manufactures universities.
On September 24 2011 02:07 TYJ.Aoy wrote: This isn't a paradox at all, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and many others are made by a ton of bright foreigners(that were invited, most don't pay anything at all) that brought all those nobels and what not to the universities names.
Not really true at all.
There's a lot of international students, depending on the school and major/program, but you're portraying it as if it's only them succeeding which is completely false.
Statistics about the American public school system only represent the average, and when the issue is top universities, generally 'the average' doesn't apply. The scope of America's grade school quality is enormous, and probably greater than any other first world country.
Not to mention the GPA and drop out rates of foreign exchange students are horrendous compared to those of domestic students...
As a "Korean National" I could EASILY get into a top 20 undergrad University with almost NO effort. I know this VERY VERY well, seeing as I have cousins and friends who are complete idiots and get into IVY Universities.... One of them got a 1620/2400 on his SAT's and got into the foreign exchange system of Harvard... You might think, well if his English is good enough for him to just take the SAT's and get a 1600 when it's not his first language he's probably pretty damn smart.... Think again, he's lived in the USA for 9 years and is completely fluent (though has an odd accent) in English... He just never got anything but a travel and visit visa, so is technically not a permanent resident or citizen... You can even pay off Harvard Alums in Korea for a fee to get recommendations... It's not uncommon.
Don't spread purposeless misinformation because you have some weird complex that makes you think Americans are all stupid...
Having the best universities doesn't make the education system good just like having the best plane doesn't make an airline the best and having the best hospital doesn't make it the best health system.
Harvard and Yale are great but the average school sucks.
Ive always heard that at least at the undergraduate level that there really isn't a difference between US schools and other countries. Graduate studies/Research is where the US universities really take it up a notch (due to more money + rep of schools bring better researchers etc).
That being said, there are plenty of bright minds who are from other countries who are educated here then take up academic positions in their own countries, which strengthens their school as they get brilliant minds educated at these places. Sure not all of them go back to their home country but a decent amount do and that helps their own universities, which is good.
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
I knew a few each year that i was at UNC, it wasn't quite an overwhelming amount, but there'd always be at least like, one or two guys on the hall who'd be an exch student from somewhere else.
I feel like part of the issue though is that kids in high school don't receive a ton of positive feedback to perform well.
They either show up to class and coast through, or they basically get the vibe that studying is "lame" and shouldn't bother with it. A lot of parents for our generation had less than stellar school experiences, so if kids bring home a bunch of Cs and a D, the parents don't get upset, because they figure, "i got similar grades and turned out just fine." so there sometimes isn't quite as much of a pressure from the parents / society to turn things around.
The schools that have kids flunking out and not passing aren't ever the same parents who get up in arms at PTA meetings about how the US is terrible at school.
For example: The wake county (County i grew up in in NC) system is (relatively) good for public schooling. I went to a decent public school and went to Carolina for university.
Our parents at the school would always complain about how north carolina was like, 48th in the nation in education. I had a few friends at some other schools in counties who were performing worse, and their parents literally did not care.
Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, based on a microscopic sample size, but i feel like there's something you can pull from that, even if only a little bit.
I feel this is true as well. The major problem with lower education in the US is that the majority of our society doesn't value it. We spend more money on education per capita than many other nations, and in the end it comes down to the fact that most kids don't care about learning.
Yeah. You basically end up with an algebra II class of 30 kids, but only 5-10 actually want to learn Algebra II. The rest are there because the state mandates it.
In college, the only reason a kid is in multi-variable calculus is because he wants to actually learn it.
American schools used to be about educating children, now they are about churning out docile workers.
That is all.
Tech schools and doctors are still fine, but half the time you end up in a nonproductive service job or as a mailman with your degree. Tuition has been steadily increasing far beyond the rate of inflation; many Americans are fooled into taking out student loans that they end up never being able to repay.
I'd say it all started going downhill in 1963 after a certain court case threw creation out of school and introduced New Age textbooks and United Nations curriculum to our schools.
Hrmm, i feel like that might be an overly simplistic view about what's going on.
Which court case are you talking about in particular? I'm afraid i haven't memorized what took place when (and don't know a whole ton to begin with :-/)
He's a creationist idiot who doesn't want evolution taught in schools, wants in-school prayers and thinks the government should be stabbed in the heart.
I just saved both you and him a subsequent reply. How's that for American efficiency?
I've always had issues with rankings and surveys bashing American pre-university education. On average we're not very good but our range is huge. Absurdly so, take the average public school in camden and compare it with the a public school in say, milburn (rich part of new jersey) and you'll see they're light years apart.
That said, our higher education machine is larger and better established than any other in the world and we draw from the world the most resources. People touting international students are off base although we do draw many excellent international students. We draw the top researchers in every field from all over the world: my math logic professor is Hungarian, stat analysis is Egyptian, theory of probability is Russian and my diff/eq is French. All of the best minds come here and teach (sometimes poorly but brilliance is brilliance).
Last note, it has nothing to do with public vs private universities.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The simple reason is, in nearly every country but the United States of America, school is where you go to learn what you need to study and get into college. That is to say, primary and secondary schools are only stepping stones to higher education.
In the USA K-12 primary and secondary schooling's main focus is NOT purely academic. In fact, a student who JUST gets straight A's and lacks a social life and club activity participation is considered a failure by this system. Most USA primary/secondary education systems are focused on creating individuals who can cooperate with others in their community to create a harmonious civil society. America is the home to progressive schooling, and so that's what it focuses on.
The main problem with this is that school becomes a sort of evil microcosm of Lord of the Flies bullshit.... which is pretty much inevitable when you throw together children and tell them to form society.... but hell, it works better than any school system in the world (arguably, of course) at creating individuals that simply mesh well with society. Basically it's the thinking that multifaceted learning is more important than factual learning or even critical thinking, because no matter how intelligent an individual is, without the social prowess and team play that must be otherwise learned is pointless. (Thusly American education is required until the end of highschool/dropping out of highschool, and is mostly free, because the student is an investment to the civility of society as a whole)
University on the other hand has the VAST majority of it's resources placed onto cultivating that already multifacted mind into a single subject... and USA universities have the most freedom of any universities in the world, subjects are highly varied and majors are completely unimportant when it comes to Undergrad until Junior year. Grad schools are even MORE laser sight focused. Why? Because the ONLY goal is thoroughly enriching a mind and creating the best specimen of that science possible. (Universities loosely base tuition costs off of academic achievement because a successful student means an influential alumnus that allow them to become MORE cost efficient... as a business)
Yes, I minor in educational philosophy >.<
In not so convoluted terms you're pointing out the difference in that in american schools the student's opinion/voice has value versus in other countries esp asian countries only the teacher is looked upon for knowledge. As in asians schools you wont see too much of group projects or student presentations to the class but rather just lectures?
While i can't speak for Asian countries, he's absolutely right about the trying to produce well rounded students, and not just kids with good grades.
I went through my first couple of years of high school and got decent grades, not straight As or anything, but all As and Bs. And then halfway through junior year i was doing research on applying to colleges, and suddenly realized that ALL of them wanted extra curricular activities. up until that point, i hadn't been particularly active at school, when it was over, i'd go home and hang out with my friends / do whatever
And so now there were a number of us that were stuck in a position where we joined / founded a bunch of clubs at school, just so we could have a bunch of stuff like that on our high school resumes, and be able to apply and get into college.
There's a huge emphasis on "well rounded educations" in america. meaning you take initiative and show leadership and do all this other stuff that won't come into play a lot of the time.
If you look at the school system as if it was starcraft 2. (why not its teamliquid) most kids will be between Bronze and Platinum league in terms on intelligence, but there are some that will be grandmaster.. it's the grandmaster kids that go to these top schools. Since america has a large population, a lot of diversity between intelligence level will exist. Averaged out, yeah it'll probably be low due to all the lower league'ers but the very top will be way and above those people it'll almost be as if they are different species.
Here's my best educated guess on the matter (see what I did there?):
The best universities in America are privatized (ivy league and such) and charge HUGE amounts of tuition. This obviously allows them to hire more qualified staff, build better facilities, etc. Your typical State university, though high on the lists of "most fun/sexiest", are hardly on equal grounds concerning prestige or quality.
At the same time, I don't think it's fair to assume the US has all the best universities, and I suspect the US itself is responsible for declaring their universities as "the best". China is really developing some high-quality institutions lately, and the very top schools in the world are found in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge), or around Europe (think France culinary schools or Italian fashion schools).
As for the discrepancy between US universities and public schools, I'm sure a great deal of it comes from the fact that a good deal of ivy league folk attended private school. Once you introduce the concept of free market to an education system, schools that rely on tuition fees to survive are more likely to invest in bettering themselves than publicly funded schools (whose budgets are slashed repeatedly to curb government spending).
My thoughts anyways...
EDIT: In response to the post above: I wouldn't equate attendance at a prestigious university with intelligence. The link is better made to wealth... anyone can go to Harvard with enough money. Hell, Bush went there.
On September 24 2011 02:25 Djzapz wrote: Having the best universities doesn't make the education system good just like having the best plane doesn't make an airline the best and having the best hospital doesn't make it the best health system.
Harvard and Yale are great but the average school sucks.
Uh... the average American university is excellent.
This debate is a bit tiring and people reading far too much into context-less, general statistics.
The American public grade school system has a lot of problems, but there is not a single system. No Child Left Behind fucked things up a bit, but at the base level, education is a state issue and the federal government doesn't have a major role in it, its operations or its funding. For anyone looking to have an insightful discussion about the topic, you need to look at it on the state/county and local level. See what some counties are doing right, what others are doing wrong and what external factors differentiate those counties.
Simply comparing America to X country doesn't work, because America's education system doesn't work that way. Improvements in Massachusetts are completely unrelated to failures in California.
I'm currently a first year student at UCLA, and I've got to say, the educational system in America in elementary school is taught mostly by teachers whose highest degree may be either a high school diploma (if they've been teaching for a long time) or a bachelor's degree (who are most of the newer teachers nowadays).
That said, there are few elementary school teachers that boast a master's or doctorate's degree. Of course, this does not necessarily convey the effectiveness all teachers, as with any exception, since a teacher with a bachelor's degree with a better care for children can be better than a teacher with a doctorate's degree who may be a pain in the ass for kids.
But, without a doubt, there is a correlation between higher education degrees and overall success in teaching.
Colleges will receive all the teachers/professors with high degrees, naturally, while the rest sprinkles on to elementary schools and high schools.
The problem lies not in high school education, but in elementary school education. In elementary school, most children will rely on others, and this is not a vice or a bad trait, but it is one that can develop into overdependency. We need to fix the way that we teach children about competition, to have them hunger for more competition, and to care about a rigorous education.
Too many of my peers in high school were settling for barely passing grades and marks, just to be able to eventually get out of school. Not many of them think of what to do after school, and that is where they end up failing. The idea of "school sucks" is prevalent within American media and I'd say that most kids are picking up on that way of thinking from the first couple of years that they step into school.
here's a short tl;dr for those who haven't bothered reading this post. American education is off balance because of the flawed design of elementary school. By the time most kids enter high school, they have the mentality that school sucks, and are not willing to strive for more. All in all, I'd say only 20% of students try (which is a sad number) and makes it into colleges, while the rest fail.
So ANU is the no.1 (except this year, no.2) uni in australia and top 30 in the world. But as it turns out, ANU is not so popular. People prefer usyd,unsw,uts and mquni as the best 4 (also known as the big 4 in aus) unis in australia. So maybe the uni ranks don't matter too much. Maybe there is some other factor other than ranks that determines how good a uni really is. Maybe.
On September 24 2011 02:01 inlagdsil wrote: This is my guess, but I'm not American:
It has to do with what it means for schools to be "bad". It doesn't mean that all schools are bad, just the majority. A minority of people with a lot of money go to the minority of very good schools and then have better chances of getting to (and affording) Ivy League colleges . If you don't have a lot of money, I think it's hard to get a good education.
EDIT: I may be wrong about expensive private schools. But I think that the better schools are often in more affluent areas, which would have the same effect.
This might have been how it was fifty years ago, but you can't really say that anymore. Top schools usually have fantastic financial aid. Ex- I go to Yale for $3,000 a year, including room and board, just because my parents are broke (i.e 3000 w/o any type of academic scholarship). It's literally cheaper for me than going to a public school back home.
I think its more about the feedback loop. High end schools only accept students who have the potential to bring them even more prestige and / or more donations. That can be because the will inherit money (I go to class with the heir to the mars corporation) or they are good leaders (kerry +2 bushes + lots of other politicians) or hardworking or smart.Most of them don't even really run off of tuition too much anymore, it costs the my university $150,000 per student, but even the richest student only pays $60,000 a year.
America has had some huge economic booms in the past 100 years, and many of the primary drivers of those booms came from Ivy league schools. They then donate literally billions of dollars back to the University (Yale raised $3.84 billion in the past 5 years from donations. In a recession.). The top university's in America are swimming in money, and this is reflected in the quality of professors and students.
tl;dr-- a century of being the richest country in the world means top american university's have enough money from donations to attract the most potentially successful students, and get more donations.
On September 24 2011 02:25 TheGiftedApe wrote: (sorry if i missed your school there are so many) One thing to note though, This high prestige has actually made it harder for most americans to get into their own schools. (http://politisite.com/2011/09/16/university-of-wisconsin-madison-admissions-favor-blacks-and-hispanics-over-whites-and-asian/) is a report at my local school that white students are being turned away for black/hispanic/international students. My cousin was class president at his high school and had a 3.8 gpa with a decent 28 act score, he was turned away by UW-Madison(he later got in after going to a smaller UW school for a year), although its very common for minority students with 3.0+ gpas to be accepted, im assuming this is happening at other prestigious universities as well.
Ummm affirmative action ring a bell?
How about Native Americans? If you do below half decent as an American native you can get into a University like Brown in a heartbeat and never pay a penny!
Not that I'd complain... such affirmative action is MUCH easier to combat in Grad school, when it actually counts, anyways.
Americans have it hard getting into their own schools because they are the msot advanced universities in the whole damn world... which is why there's such a disparity between your run of the mill community college and multibillion dollar names like Princeton or Harvvard >.<
For American students to get into such universities so easily would be like asking American kids to ALL be so damn smart that the competition has no chance... and we're only human. What makes me kinda angry is that affirmative action doesn't affect Asians... simply because Asian families are more likely to stress studying... wtf is up with that?
On September 24 2011 02:30 Rob28 wrote: Here's my best educated guess on the matter (see what I did there?):
The best universities in America are privatized (ivy league and such) and charge HUGE amounts of tuition. This obviously allows them to hire more qualified staff, build better facilities, etc. Your typical State university, though high on the lists of "most fun/sexiest", are hardly on equal grounds concerning prestige or quality.
At the same time, I don't think it's fair to assume the US has all the best universities, and I suspect the US itself is responsible for declaring their universities as "the best". China is really developing some high-quality institutions lately, and the very top schools in the world are found in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge), or around Europe (think France culinary schools or Italian fashion schools).
As for the discrepancy between US universities and public schools, I'm sure a great deal of it comes from the fact that a good deal of ivy league folk attended private school. Once you introduce the concept of free market to an education system, schools that rely on tuition fees to survive are more likely to invest in bettering themselves than publicly funded schools (whose budgets are slashed repeatedly to curb government spending).
My thoughts anyways...
Eh I disagree with some of your points, mainly because plenty of "Public" universities are very good schools. Look up the term "Public Ivy League" for a list of highly ranked public institutions. Also tuition is hardly the biggest source of income for a school. Its research grants and endowments from public and private sources where they get a lot of money. Harvard just has a much richer group of alumni then most schools and Harvard is ranked #1 in the world.
On September 24 2011 02:30 Rob28 wrote: Here's my best educated guess on the matter (see what I did there?):
The best universities in America are privatized (ivy league and such) and charge HUGE amounts of tuition. This obviously allows them to hire more qualified staff, build better facilities, etc. Your typical State university, though high on the lists of "most fun/sexiest", are hardly on equal grounds concerning prestige or quality.
At the same time, I don't think it's fair to assume the US has all the best universities, and I suspect the US itself is responsible for declaring their universities as "the best". China is really developing some high-quality institutions lately, and the very top schools in the world are found in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge), or around Europe (think France culinary schools or Italian fashion schools).
As for the discrepancy between US universities and public schools, I'm sure a great deal of it comes from the fact that a good deal of ivy league folk attended private school. Once you introduce the concept of free market to an education system, schools that rely on tuition fees to survive are more likely to invest in bettering themselves than publicly funded schools (whose budgets are slashed repeatedly to curb government spending).
My thoughts anyways...
Eh I disagree with some of your points, mainly because plenty of "Public" universities are very good schools. Look up the term "Public Ivy League" for a list of highly ranked public institutions. Also tuition is hardly the biggest source of income for a school. Its research grants and endowments from public and private sources where they get a lot of money. Harvard just has a much richer group of alumni then most schools and Harvard is ranked #1 in the world.
Thanks for basically taking the point in this, i was halfway through a response then decided it wasn't worth it, but since you said something, i agree
UVA, UNC, UCLA, all prime examples of EXTREMELY good public universities. There are also many schools that get highly rated as "party schools" but part of that is just because of the size.
Ohio state has something like 40,000 undergrads, and is always highly rated as a "party school." the thing about that, is the school's so huge, that yea, you'll always be able to find a party, but they also have exceptional schools inside the university, and a degree from OSU is relatively well esteemed. It's not like you're getting toilette paper as your diploma or something if you graduate from a public university.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The simple reason is, in nearly every country but the United States of America, school is where you go to learn what you need to study and get into college. That is to say, primary and secondary schools are only stepping stones to higher education.
In the USA K-12 primary and secondary schooling's main focus is NOT purely academic. In fact, a student who JUST gets straight A's and lacks a social life and club activity participation is considered a failure by this system. Most USA primary/secondary education systems are focused on creating individuals who can cooperate with others in their community to create a harmonious civil society. America is the home to progressive schooling, and so that's what it focuses on.
The main problem with this is that school becomes a sort of evil microcosm of Lord of the Flies bullshit.... which is pretty much inevitable when you throw together children and tell them to form society.... but hell, it works better than any school system in the world (arguably, of course) at creating individuals that simply mesh well with society. Basically it's the thinking that multifaceted learning is more important than factual learning or even critical thinking, because no matter how intelligent an individual is, without the social prowess and team play that must be otherwise learned is pointless. (Thusly American education is required until the end of highschool/dropping out of highschool, and is mostly free, because the student is an investment to the civility of society as a whole)
University on the other hand has the VAST majority of it's resources placed onto cultivating that already multifacted mind into a single subject... and USA universities have the most freedom of any universities in the world, subjects are highly varied and majors are completely unimportant when it comes to Undergrad until Junior year. Grad schools are even MORE laser sight focused. Why? Because the ONLY goal is thoroughly enriching a mind and creating the best specimen of that science possible. (Universities loosely base tuition costs off of academic achievement because a successful student means an influential alumnus that allow them to become MORE cost efficient... as a business)
Yes, I minor in educational philosophy >.<
In not so convoluted terms you're pointing out the difference in that in american schools the student's opinion/voice has value versus in other countries esp asian countries only the teacher is looked upon for knowledge. As in asians schools you wont see too much of group projects or student presentations to the class but rather just lectures?
In Korea, school clubs are pure formality. American schooling is based upon creating individuals who can work in a team... because a team of relatively intelligent individuals almost always trumps a single cultivated individual when thrown straight into society.
The point is... American school are trying to create productive people... most other nation's schools are trying to create kids who can pass college entrance exams.
TBH, America only had leading universities after WWII. Some of the most talented Europeans (Einstein, Godel, Neumann, etc) came here and just completely raised the bar of American universities and their influence remains today.
European universities like Gottingen were way better than any American college in the early 20th century until the max exodus of their talent to American happened.
And we still see this happen today (although it's due to financial reasons now, and not due to war).
On September 24 2011 02:37 svi wrote: TBH, America only had leading universities after WWII. Some of the most talented Europeans (Einstein, Godel, Neumann, etc) came here and just completely raised the bar of American universities and their influence remains today.
European universities like Gottingen were way better than any American college in the early 20th century until the max exodus of their talent to American happened.
And we still see this happen today (although it's due to financial reasons now, and not due to war).
I'm going to give a viewpoint of someone who went from the Philippines to the US. The traditional Asian model of education works very well for imparting the fundamentals of math, reading and writing to young kids. It's good from pre-school to elementary to part of high school. It's way better than the US style for teaching the basics.
However, it pretty much fails for college education and is even worse for graduate education. Many Asian universities are too similar in style to high school. American universities are simply better at educating people on the cusp of adulthood and beyond.
US universities also get a lot of international students. The university I graduated from has a huge contingent of Asian students and a significant amount of students from Europe as well. There's a diversity of ideas and viewpoints you just cannot get anywhere else. Foreign students generally get no financial aid from the university as well so they end up subsidizing some of the American students.
The top US universities are pretty much international. Last I heard, UC Irvine, for example, is around 70% Asians and Asian Americans.
On September 24 2011 02:30 Rob28 wrote: Here's my best educated guess on the matter (see what I did there?):
The best universities in America are privatized (ivy league and such) and charge HUGE amounts of tuition. This obviously allows them to hire more qualified staff, build better facilities, etc. Your typical State university, though high on the lists of "most fun/sexiest", are hardly on equal grounds concerning prestige or quality.
At the same time, I don't think it's fair to assume the US has all the best universities, and I suspect the US itself is responsible for declaring their universities as "the best". China is really developing some high-quality institutions lately, and the very top schools in the world are found in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge), or around Europe (think France culinary schools or Italian fashion schools).
As for the discrepancy between US universities and public schools, I'm sure a great deal of it comes from the fact that a good deal of ivy league folk attended private school. Once you introduce the concept of free market to an education system, schools that rely on tuition fees to survive are more likely to invest in bettering themselves than publicly funded schools (whose budgets are slashed repeatedly to curb government spending).
My thoughts anyways...
Eh I disagree with some of your points, mainly because plenty of "Public" universities are very good schools. Look up the term "Public Ivy League" for a list of highly ranked public institutions. Also tuition is hardly the biggest source of income for a school. Its research grants and endowments from public and private sources where they get a lot of money. Harvard just has a much richer group of alumni then most schools and Harvard is ranked #1 in the world.
Thanks for basically taking the point in this, i was halfway through a response then decided it wasn't worth it, but since you said something, i agree
UVA, UNC, UCLA, all prime examples of EXTREMELY good public universities. There are also many schools that get highly rated as "party schools" but part of that is just because of the size.
Ohio state has something like 40,000 undergrads, and is always highly rated as a "party school." the thing about that, is the school's so huge, that yea, you'll always be able to find a party, but they also have exceptional schools inside the university, and a degree from OSU is relatively well esteemed. It's not like you're getting toilette paper as your diploma or something if you graduate from a public university.
Yea its funny like you said for OSU, or most of the big ten schools have huge undergraduate numbers so they are labeled as party schools by some and written off but most big ten schools have excellent programs at the undergraduate level and some really really good post graduate programs. Lol I remember when I was young a lady friend of my mother said that Uni of Michigan and Michigan State (the two best schools in Michigan) were party schools and were not good. While I agree there is def a lot of partying at those two places they also offer a lot of good academics. Thats why they are awesome.
On September 24 2011 02:40 andrewlt wrote: I'm going to give a viewpoint of someone who went from the Philippines to the US. The traditional Asian model of education works very well for imparting the fundamentals of math, reading and writing to young kids. It's good from pre-school to elementary to part of high school. It's way better than the US style for teaching the basics.
However, it pretty much fails for college education and is even worse for graduate education. Many Asian universities are too similar in style to high school. American universities are simply better at educating people on the cusp of adulthood and beyond.
US universities also get a lot of international students. The university I graduated from has a huge contingent of Asian students and a significant amount of students from Europe as well. There's a diversity of ideas and viewpoints you just cannot get anywhere else. Foreign students generally get no financial aid from the university as well so they end up subsidizing some of the American students.
The top US universities are pretty much international. Last I heard, UC Irvine, for example, is around 70% Asians and Asian Americans.
I feel like a lot of the lower education issues are also sometimes teachers who don't care enough, or aren't paid enough, or don't get enough support, or whatever, and sometimes pass the buck on a kid, and just move him into the next grade level.
Every now and then you'll hear some story about a kid who's in 10th grade, but never really learned how to read or write. It's absolutely depressing, but each year the kid's teachers would basically pass the buck, or there'd be a remedial class that was far enough back that they could just dump him into that, and he'd move on in grade level, and just repeat that one class or something.
On September 24 2011 02:30 Rob28 wrote: Here's my best educated guess on the matter (see what I did there?):
The best universities in America are privatized (ivy league and such) and charge HUGE amounts of tuition. This obviously allows them to hire more qualified staff, build better facilities, etc. Your typical State university, though high on the lists of "most fun/sexiest", are hardly on equal grounds concerning prestige or quality.
At the same time, I don't think it's fair to assume the US has all the best universities, and I suspect the US itself is responsible for declaring their universities as "the best". China is really developing some high-quality institutions lately, and the very top schools in the world are found in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge), or around Europe (think France culinary schools or Italian fashion schools).
As for the discrepancy between US universities and public schools, I'm sure a great deal of it comes from the fact that a good deal of ivy league folk attended private school. Once you introduce the concept of free market to an education system, schools that rely on tuition fees to survive are more likely to invest in bettering themselves than publicly funded schools (whose budgets are slashed repeatedly to curb government spending).
My thoughts anyways...
Eh I disagree with some of your points, mainly because plenty of "Public" universities are very good schools. Look up the term "Public Ivy League" for a list of highly ranked public institutions. Also tuition is hardly the biggest source of income for a school. Its research grants and endowments from public and private sources where they get a lot of money. Harvard just has a much richer group of alumni then most schools and Harvard is ranked #1 in the world.
Thanks for basically taking the point in this, i was halfway through a response then decided it wasn't worth it, but since you said something, i agree
UVA, UNC, UCLA, all prime examples of EXTREMELY good public universities. There are also many schools that get highly rated as "party schools" but part of that is just because of the size.
Ohio state has something like 40,000 undergrads, and is always highly rated as a "party school." the thing about that, is the school's so huge, that yea, you'll always be able to find a party, but they also have exceptional schools inside the university, and a degree from OSU is relatively well esteemed. It's not like you're getting toilette paper as your diploma or something if you graduate from a public university.
Yea its funny like you said for OSU, or most of the big ten schools have huge undergraduate numbers so they are labeled as party schools by some and written off but most big ten schools have excellent programs at the undergraduate level and some really really good post graduate programs. Lol I remember when I was young a lady friend of my mother said that Uni of Michigan and Michigan State (the two best schools in Michigan) were party schools and were not good. While I agree there is def a lot of partying at those two places they also offer a lot of good academics. Thats why they are awesome.
Exactly. I feel like once a university reaches a certain size, yes, there will always be a "party" element, just because it's huge. At UNC, we're not terribly well known for being a party school, but if i wanted to find something going on, it was definitely not a hard thing to do.
And we had half as many kids as OSU.
so i feel like people are too quick to label schools "party schools" or "academic only (i.e. not party)" and then those labels just kind of stick. a lot of kids in ohio see "oh man, osu is a party school, let's go there" and it kind of reinforces the party label, EVEN THOUGH it has stellar academics.
but to get back a little more on topic, it's difficult to judge the primary/secondary and post secondary education worlds in the US, since they're SO different, it's like night and day.
I just feel like a lot of work needs to be done in general (my GF is a teacher, and so i hear a lot about these various things / issues)
I've heard the overly strong teacher's union plays a very large role in the shitty state of public education in the United States. Along with standardized tests and the way federal money gets distributed .
I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
No, where American universities really shine is at the post graduate level. It seems like a lot of the creative ideas come from American research groups (I say this as a person who has read scientific papers and browses a lot of science news), whether it's in physics or medicine. I think the difficulty, or lack thereof, of American schools is perfect in that it provides adequate learning to those who don't care about learning while providing plenty of free time for extracurricular studying to those students who want to go on to get a Ph.D.
I worked in a chemistry lab for a year with graduate students from China and Taiwan and the things they say of their junior high and high schools sound like horror stories. They're forced to work all day (literally 12+ hours) and sometimes even on Saturdays. Sure, this creates students who know a lot of the established theories and students who can do crazy multiplication in their head, but that isn't what graduate school is about. In graduate school you have to solve an unsolved problem, and I feel like the American school system fosters students who excel in this, much more so than other schools where more emphasis is placed on rote memorization and getting the right answer all the time.
Not the most well thought out writing but that's my opinion on it.
On September 24 2011 02:49 Frigo wrote: I've heard the overly strong teacher's union plays a very large role in the shitty state of public education in the United States.
I feel like that's a broad generalization, and oversimplifying a huge issue. you'd think that if they were able to orchestrate the downfall of the us education system, they'd be able to negotiate better wages for teachers, and we wouldn't constantly hear about how poorly we pay them.
Edit: i'm sorry, i feel like that came off as slightly needlessly aggressive. I feel like it's not necessarily the teachers unions that are destroying the system, but more that it's difficult for any teachers to enact any real change individually.
They're always at the mercy of their school, which is at the mercy of the county system, which is at the mercy of the state budget, and in north carolina, we underfund like it's going out of style.
We even implemented a new state lottery a few years ago to help put all the money from that into education. The result? I believe (not 100%) that the education system has received less funding overall from the rest of the budget (that it normally would have received), because everyone in the state legislature just said, "oh, the NC Education lottery is already going to that, let's take some of that money and move it elsewhere"
Its interesting as I have an aunt who teaches private school at the 2nd grade level. She always talks about the educational differences and she talks about her students from other countries. She says that they are way ahead generally in like basics stuff in that they are almost like robots with stuff like spelling/math/reading. But that their critical thinking/creativity/social interaction type of things is stunted. As well she said that generally the parents of these kids prefer them to go to US school because they actually enjoy it (Note this is for private school in the US).
Personally I went to private school until high school. I thought my freshman year was a joke because it basically was my 8th grade year all over again with less homework and easier tests. Def a huge drop off between private and public in the US. Which reflects that capitalistic notion that if you have money in the US its pretty much the greatest country on earth but if you have little to none then this country SUCKS really really bad. Most people fall in the middle so this country is Meh ok
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
You're argument is that since we have the best schools in the world, we can't also have the worst schools in the world?
That's like saying if the tallest person lives in our country, the shortest person can't also, or if we have some of the most physically fit people in the world, we can't also have some of the highest rates of obesity.
I might be missing something but it just seems like your argument is just a fallacy.
Sure it's interesting, but in no way is it a paradox.
On September 24 2011 02:49 Frigo wrote: I've heard the overly strong teacher's union plays a very large role in the shitty state of public education in the United States.
I feel like that's a broad generalization, and oversimplifying a huge issue. you'd think that if they were able to orchestrate the downfall of the us education system, they'd be able to negotiate better wages for teachers, and we wouldn't constantly hear about how poorly we pay them.
Teacher unions don't have 100% leeway in what and how something can be taught, often its decided at federal, then state, then by district's administration.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The simple reason is, in nearly every country but the United States of America, school is where you go to learn what you need to study and get into college. That is to say, primary and secondary schools are only stepping stones to higher education.
In the USA K-12 primary and secondary schooling's main focus is NOT purely academic. In fact, a student who JUST gets straight A's and lacks a social life and club activity participation is considered a failure by this system. Most USA primary/secondary education systems are focused on creating individuals who can cooperate with others in their community to create a harmonious civil society. America is the home to progressive schooling, and so that's what it focuses on.
The main problem with this is that school becomes a sort of evil microcosm of Lord of the Flies bullshit.... which is pretty much inevitable when you throw together children and tell them to form society.... but hell, it works better than any school system in the world (arguably, of course) at creating individuals that simply mesh well with society. Basically it's the thinking that multifaceted learning is more important than factual learning or even critical thinking, because no matter how intelligent an individual is, without the social prowess and team play that must be otherwise learned is pointless. (Thusly American education is required until the end of highschool/dropping out of highschool, and is mostly free, because the student is an investment to the civility of society as a whole)
University on the other hand has the VAST majority of it's resources placed onto cultivating that already multifacted mind into a single subject... and USA universities have the most freedom of any universities in the world, subjects are highly varied and majors are completely unimportant when it comes to Undergrad until Junior year. Grad schools are even MORE laser sight focused. Why? Because the ONLY goal is thoroughly enriching a mind and creating the best specimen of that science possible. (Universities loosely base tuition costs off of academic achievement because a successful student means an influential alumnus that allow them to become MORE cost efficient... as a business)
Yes, I minor in educational philosophy >.<
In not so convoluted terms you're pointing out the difference in that in american schools the student's opinion/voice has value versus in other countries esp asian countries only the teacher is looked upon for knowledge. As in asians schools you wont see too much of group projects or student presentations to the class but rather just lectures?
In Korea, school clubs are pure formality. American schooling is based upon creating individuals who can work in a team... because a team of relatively intelligent individuals almost always trumps a single cultivated individual when thrown straight into society.
The point is... American school are trying to create productive people... most other nation's schools are trying to create kids who can pass college entrance exams.
Also... where was it convoluted?
I'm a naturally confused/confusing individual XD
Outta curiosity are clubs in korea created by teachers or students, In California where i grew up students created and ran the clubs, a teacher was necessary for to hold the room essentially just a legal matter most of the time they just worked on correcting papers while we ran clubs, except sports. Which is why we ran a gambit of clubs, such a leo/lions club which was to help others find community service opportunities(which is a requirement of graduation) to a club me and my friends created video game club which actually made a shit ton of money due to running tournaments.
On September 24 2011 02:50 Slaughter wrote: Its interesting as I have an aunt who teaches private school at the 2nd grade level. She always talks about the educational differences and she talks about her students from other countries. She says that they are way ahead generally in like basics stuff in that they are almost like robots with stuff like spelling/math/reading. But that their critical thinking/creativity/social interaction type of things is stunted. As well she said that generally the parents of these kids prefer them to go to US school because they actually enjoy it (Note this is for private school in the US).
Personally I went to private school until high school. I thought my freshman year was a joke because it basically was my 8th grade year all over again with less homework and easier tests. Def a huge drop off between private and public in the US. Which reflects that capitalistic notion that if you have money in the US its pretty much the greatest country on earth but if you have little to none then this country SUCKS really really bad. Most people fall in the middle so this country is Meh ok
That is pretty much true. For all its faults, the US school system is still pretty good in churning out innovative thinkers. It's why Stanford, for example, can produce the Yahoos and Googles of the world.
The California universities attract many of Asia's best and brightest as well, more so than most other US universities. Still, I'm surprised that many Asians do manage to end up in some of the more obscure schools in the Midwest or anywhere far from the Pacific coast.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
that's not even close to true. A huge number of universities in america are public. Every single "____ State university" and "University of ______" is a public university.
University of Pennsylvania.
Nothing wrong with public universities though. Berkeley and Michigan are comparable in prestige to most private universities.
On September 24 2011 02:49 Frigo wrote: I've heard the overly strong teacher's union plays a very large role in the shitty state of public education in the United States.
I feel like that's a broad generalization, and oversimplifying a huge issue. you'd think that if they were able to orchestrate the downfall of the us education system, they'd be able to negotiate better wages for teachers, and we wouldn't constantly hear about how poorly we pay them.
Teacher unions don't have 100% leeway in what and how something can be taught, often its decided at federal, then state, then by district's administration.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The simple reason is, in nearly every country but the United States of America, school is where you go to learn what you need to study and get into college. That is to say, primary and secondary schools are only stepping stones to higher education.
In the USA K-12 primary and secondary schooling's main focus is NOT purely academic. In fact, a student who JUST gets straight A's and lacks a social life and club activity participation is considered a failure by this system. Most USA primary/secondary education systems are focused on creating individuals who can cooperate with others in their community to create a harmonious civil society. America is the home to progressive schooling, and so that's what it focuses on.
The main problem with this is that school becomes a sort of evil microcosm of Lord of the Flies bullshit.... which is pretty much inevitable when you throw together children and tell them to form society.... but hell, it works better than any school system in the world (arguably, of course) at creating individuals that simply mesh well with society. Basically it's the thinking that multifaceted learning is more important than factual learning or even critical thinking, because no matter how intelligent an individual is, without the social prowess and team play that must be otherwise learned is pointless. (Thusly American education is required until the end of highschool/dropping out of highschool, and is mostly free, because the student is an investment to the civility of society as a whole)
University on the other hand has the VAST majority of it's resources placed onto cultivating that already multifacted mind into a single subject... and USA universities have the most freedom of any universities in the world, subjects are highly varied and majors are completely unimportant when it comes to Undergrad until Junior year. Grad schools are even MORE laser sight focused. Why? Because the ONLY goal is thoroughly enriching a mind and creating the best specimen of that science possible. (Universities loosely base tuition costs off of academic achievement because a successful student means an influential alumnus that allow them to become MORE cost efficient... as a business)
Yes, I minor in educational philosophy >.<
In not so convoluted terms you're pointing out the difference in that in american schools the student's opinion/voice has value versus in other countries esp asian countries only the teacher is looked upon for knowledge. As in asians schools you wont see too much of group projects or student presentations to the class but rather just lectures?
In Korea, school clubs are pure formality. American schooling is based upon creating individuals who can work in a team... because a team of relatively intelligent individuals almost always trumps a single cultivated individual when thrown straight into society.
The point is... American school are trying to create productive people... most other nation's schools are trying to create kids who can pass college entrance exams.
Also... where was it convoluted?
I'm a naturally confused/confusing individual XD
Outta curiosity are clubs in korea created by teachers or by students, In California where i grew up students created and ran the clubs, a teacher was necessary for the room essentially just a legal matter most of the time they just worked on correcting papers while we ran clubs. Which is why we ran a gambit of clubs, such a leo/lions club which was to help others find community service opportunities(which is a requirement of graduation) to a club me and my friends created video game club which actually made a shit ton of money due to running tournaments.
Haha yea, i edited and added a little more clarity, since i feel like my first line came off just a little abrasive and not very helpful.
On your 2nd note, I've also heard (a friend of mine teaches english over in korea), that their teachers are switched around to different schools in the area every 4 years, to keep one school from becoming the "goal" and the "good school" while turning the rest into shit. Basically, you're required to move every 4 years to keep the schools fresh, and to keep them all on a level field.
Does anyone know if this is true? Or have any experience with it?
American universities have more money and prestige hence they get the best teachers and students that eventually gets them more money, prestige and even better teachers and students!
On September 24 2011 02:37 svi wrote: TBH, America only had leading universities after WWII. Some of the most talented Europeans (Einstein, Godel, Neumann, etc) came here and just completely raised the bar of American universities and their influence remains today.
European universities like Gottingen were way better than any American college in the early 20th century until the max exodus of their talent to American happened.
And we still see this happen today (although it's due to financial reasons now, and not due to war).
well this goes for everything american, America was barely a player on the world scene until after WW2, pre-ww1 america held a isolationist theory of global affairs, obviously european and asian countries had a 400+ year head start, as nations. America as its currently known, with 50 states, only happened in the 1900's, most western states came in the 1910's-1920's, and Alaska and Hawaii not until 1959, imo the country is really only ~125 years old. Before ww2, america was just that place where movies came from.
On September 24 2011 02:57 shell wrote: American universities have more money and prestige hence they get the best teachers and students that eventually gets them more money, prestige and even better teachers and students!
It's very simple really.
I wouldn't say it's that simple, but that definitely is a significant contributing factor.
On September 24 2011 02:49 YeahScience wrote: I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
No, where American universities really shine is at the post graduate level. It seems like a lot of the creative ideas come from American research groups (I say this as a person who has read scientific papers and browses a lot of science news), whether it's in physics or medicine. I think the difficulty, or lack thereof, of American schools is perfect in that it provides adequate learning to those who don't care about learning while providing plenty of free time for extracurricular studying to those students who want to go on to get a Ph.D.
I worked in a chemistry lab for a year with graduate students from China and Taiwan and the things they say of their junior high and high schools sound like horror stories. They're forced to work all day (literally 12+ hours) and sometimes even on Saturdays. Sure, this creates students who know a lot of the established theories and students who can do crazy multiplication in their head, but that isn't what graduate school is about. In graduate school you have to solve an unsolved problem, and I feel like the American school system fosters students who excel in this, much more so than other schools where more emphasis is placed on rote memorization and getting the right answer all the time.
Not the most well thought out writing but that's my opinion on it.
China and Taiwan fails at graduate schools because they've only just recently entered the math/science arena, not because they emphasize 'memorization' or any of that bullshit.
China never really gave a shit about physics or mathematics under Mao, so they've done nothing more than play catch up in recent years. They've only started to absorb western ideas like quantum mechanics a few decades ago, while Europe way ahead.
On the other hand, America has the luxury of plucking away nearly every single one of Europe's greatest minds due to WWII and these people were able to teach and train American students which guaranteed them a strong generation.
When you have geniuses like Godel/Neumann/Einstein/Dijstrka, etc how the hell are you not going to produce great grad students? How is China supposed to compete with people who learned firsthand from the masters while their previous generation were getting fucked by Mao?
Education starts with the parents. Schools can only do so much. The biggest factors that affect a student is their households income and parents.
The largest reason the us tests lower in schools is because everyone in the country goes to schools. In many of the other countries, the poor or not qualified do not have access to the tests so they can not weigh down the scores. It is similar with Germany. Another problem that shows up is that the US has a large amount of immigrants that do not even know English, but still attend the schools and wont pass a test in English.
On September 24 2011 03:03 Dr_Strange wrote: Education starts with the parents. Schools can only do so much. The biggest factors that affect a student is their households income and parents.
The largest reason the us tests lower in schools is because everyone in the country goes to schools. In many of the other countries, the poor or not qualified do not have access to the tests so they can not weigh down the scores. It is similar with Germany. Another problem that shows up is that the US has a large amount of immigrants that do not even know English, but still attend the schools and wont pass a test in English.
I've seen a number of people say this, i'm trying to figure out what countries everyone's talking about when they say things like, "They don't count the poor."
I've studied german for a number of years, and am trying to figure out how they'd do that. I mean, i know they have a different tiered system (Realschule vs Gymnasium vs. Fachschule) but don't know if they'd actively neglect some scores?
OP, there are tons of great public schools in America, but that depends on which county or district the school system is in. There are situations where great public schools exist in the same city as some truly horrendous schools. This is because the funding comes from the county. This is why parents look for homes near great schools, and subsequently, the price on those neighborhoods is significantly higher than neighborhoods right outside of the district line. I'm not an expert at how state funding is divided between counties, but I do see a trend of larger cities having much better schools (better teachers, better technology, better facilities) than schools in rural areas.
Our state university system, however, is pretty damn good. This is not even including Ivy League/private universities, which are among the best in the world. You can go to a state school in your state (affordable), transfer to a university that focuses on your specialty, and go from there.
tl;dr grade school public school system is kind of screwed up, but at the university level it is pretty damn good. Not the best explanation, but that's my unprofessional take on it
On September 24 2011 03:06 Saturnize wrote: Because universities for the most part are not funded by the state.
in america, at least, this is false. a huge number of our universities receive funding from the state
Most ______ State University and University of ________ (one notable exception being UPENN) are public and receive huge chunks of their funding from the state.
On September 24 2011 03:03 Dr_Strange wrote: Education starts with the parents. Schools can only do so much. The biggest factors that affect a student is their households income and parents.
The largest reason the us tests lower in schools is because everyone in the country goes to schools. In many of the other countries, the poor or not qualified do not have access to the tests so they can not weigh down the scores. It is similar with Germany. Another problem that shows up is that the US has a large amount of immigrants that do not even know English, but still attend the schools and wont pass a test in English.
I've seen a number of people say this, i'm trying to figure out what countries everyone's talking about when they say things like, "They don't count the poor."
I've studied german for a number of years, and am trying to figure out how they'd do that. I mean, i know they have a different tiered system (Realschule vs Gymnasium vs. Fachschule) but don't know if they'd actively neglect some scores?
Some people in the US don't have a concept of what another country is really like, only their imagination.
And it's pretty ridiculous to blame poor education on immigrants when that's one of the biggest strengths of the US university system.
Whatever anyone says, it's almost purely because of the length of the school year for American kids. Something like 30% less days, and a summer break so long kids forget everything they learned.
With more days and better managed breaks, they'd be fine.
On September 24 2011 03:02 svi wrote: China and Taiwan fails at graduate schools because they've only just recently entered the math/science arena, not because they emphasize 'memorization' or any of that bullshit.
China never really gave a shit about physics or mathematics under Mao, so they've done nothing more than play catch up in recent years. They've only started to absorb western ideas like quantum mechanics a few decades ago, while Europe way ahead.
On the other hand, America has the luxury of plucking away nearly every single one of Europe's greatest minds due to WWII and these people were able to teach and train American students which guaranteed them a strong generation.
When you have geniuses like Godel/Neumann/Einstein/Dijstrka, etc how the hell are you not going to produce great grad students? How is China supposed to compete with people who learned firsthand from the masters while their previous generation were getting fucked by Mao?
Well if by plucking you mean being a safe haven from fascists and racists then yes, you're correct. That was a long time ago and many of those plucked scientists had long careers and many students in Europe before coming to America as well. Also, Linus Pauling, one of the more influential scientists of the 20th century (second to Einstein perhaps) was 100% American born and raised.
Also that's a good point about just recently entering the graduate school system, I hadn't thought about it. But that doesn't excuse blatant plagiarism at the graduate school level in China.
On September 24 2011 02:49 YeahScience wrote: I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
No, where American universities really shine is at the post graduate level. It seems like a lot of the creative ideas come from American research groups (I say this as a person who has read scientific papers and browses a lot of science news), whether it's in physics or medicine. I think the difficulty, or lack thereof, of American schools is perfect in that it provides adequate learning to those who don't care about learning while providing plenty of free time for extracurricular studying to those students who want to go on to get a Ph.D.
I worked in a chemistry lab for a year with graduate students from China and Taiwan and the things they say of their junior high and high schools sound like horror stories. They're forced to work all day (literally 12+ hours) and sometimes even on Saturdays. Sure, this creates students who know a lot of the established theories and students who can do crazy multiplication in their head, but that isn't what graduate school is about. In graduate school you have to solve an unsolved problem, and I feel like the American school system fosters students who excel in this, much more so than other schools where more emphasis is placed on rote memorization and getting the right answer all the time.
Not the most well thought out writing but that's my opinion on it.
China and Taiwan fails at graduate schools because they've only just recently entered the math/science arena, not because they emphasize 'memorization' or any of that bullshit.
China never really gave a shit about physics or mathematics under Mao, so they've done nothing more than play catch up in recent years. They've only started to absorb western ideas like quantum mechanics a few decades ago, while Europe way ahead.
On the other hand, America has the luxury of plucking away nearly every single one of Europe's greatest minds due to WWII and these people were able to teach and train American students which guaranteed them a strong generation.
When you have geniuses like Godel/Neumann/Einstein/Dijstrka, etc how the hell are you not going to produce great grad students? How is China supposed to compete with people who learned firsthand from the masters while their previous generation were getting fucked by Mao?
you do realize those scientists came over in fear of their lives, and not just because Americans "plucked them" right? Einstein came over well before the 1940's, along with hundreds of other European scientists who disliked the war mongering regimes of the early 1900's European continent, which often limited their research to subjects that could be used for war or domination of the other European countries. Who knows where Europe would be right now had they not blasted themselves back into the stone age from 1910-1945. Funny we are on this subject right after this comes out: (http://www.businessinsider.com/jasek-rostowski-war-poland-2011-9)
I wouldn't say it's all about the money but more about prestige in general. Here in Switzerland you can attend any university basically for free and these institutions still do pretty well in international rankings.
And if i'm not terribly mistaken most research faculties in universities actually pay for themselves through their research and consulting.
Prestige comes from research results which attracts more talented people which in turn produces more notable results. American universities somehow managed to get that initial advantage over others maybe also due to English being an international language.
On September 24 2011 03:22 Kemy wrote: I wouldn't say it's all about the money but more about prestige in general. Here in Switzerland you can attend any university basically for free and these institutions still do pretty well in international rankings.
And if i'm not terribly mistaken most research faculties in universities actually pay for themselves through their research and consulting.
Prestige comes from research results which attracts more talented people which in turn produces more notable results. American universities somehow managed to get that initial advantage over others maybe also due to English being an international language.
America also has a lot of companies who know how to take advantage of said research through partnerships. Professors, especially in business schools, frequently consult with corporations. The university takes a huge cut out of it as well.
They also benefit from having a lot of cheap, smart, overworked, indentured servants, many of whom are foreign. I believe the term for these overworked, enslaved peons is "graduate student" or "graduate assistant".
On September 24 2011 02:49 YeahScience wrote: I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
No, where American universities really shine is at the post graduate level. It seems like a lot of the creative ideas come from American research groups (I say this as a person who has read scientific papers and browses a lot of science news), whether it's in physics or medicine. I think the difficulty, or lack thereof, of American schools is perfect in that it provides adequate learning to those who don't care about learning while providing plenty of free time for extracurricular studying to those students who want to go on to get a Ph.D.
I worked in a chemistry lab for a year with graduate students from China and Taiwan and the things they say of their junior high and high schools sound like horror stories. They're forced to work all day (literally 12+ hours) and sometimes even on Saturdays. Sure, this creates students who know a lot of the established theories and students who can do crazy multiplication in their head, but that isn't what graduate school is about. In graduate school you have to solve an unsolved problem, and I feel like the American school system fosters students who excel in this, much more so than other schools where more emphasis is placed on rote memorization and getting the right answer all the time.
Not the most well thought out writing but that's my opinion on it.
China and Taiwan fails at graduate schools because they've only just recently entered the math/science arena, not because they emphasize 'memorization' or any of that bullshit.
China never really gave a shit about physics or mathematics under Mao, so they've done nothing more than play catch up in recent years. They've only started to absorb western ideas like quantum mechanics a few decades ago, while Europe way ahead.
On the other hand, America has the luxury of plucking away nearly every single one of Europe's greatest minds due to WWII and these people were able to teach and train American students which guaranteed them a strong generation.
When you have geniuses like Godel/Neumann/Einstein/Dijstrka, etc how the hell are you not going to produce great grad students? How is China supposed to compete with people who learned firsthand from the masters while their previous generation were getting fucked by Mao?
you do realize those scientists came over in fear of their lives, and not just because Americans "plucked them" right? Einstein came over well before the 1940's, along with hundreds of other European scientists who disliked the war mongering regimes of the early 1900's European continent, which often limited their research to subjects that could be used for war or domination of the other European countries. Who knows where Europe would be right now had they not blasted themselves back into the stone age from 1910-1945. Funny we are on this subject right after this comes out: (http://www.businessinsider.com/jasek-rostowski-war-poland-2011-9)
Of course I realize that; I said in a earlier post that they came because of the war.
European universities like Gottingen produced some of the greatest mathematicians and physicists ever (Gauss, Riemann, Hilbert, Kronecker, Dirichlet, Planck etc) but then that university went to a downward slope because they lost all their talent in the war.
Even Hilbert said that there was no math and science there after everyone left.
In order to produce good science you need to be learning from some of the smartest people and all of those smartest people shifted from Europe to America.
Countries like China can't compete when they've only recently started learning modern science (due to political reasons and becoming closed off from the west). Would you rather be learning grad school material from someone who worked and learned from the greatest scientists of his age or a Chinese professor who only started reading the works of these scientists a few decades ago?
Money bro money. There are a ton of public and private schools, but they don't get as much funding each because there isn't enough money to make substantial improvements to the entire educational system.
Meanwhile, there are much less universities that get tossed ludicrous amounts of money to make research projects and buy equipment, hire faculty, etc.
If you look at the PISA scores of American children from high income families the US is actually doing pretty good. Their scores are on par or above the best scoring countries in the world.
Of course it can be a little misleading to compare high earners in one country to the average of another but the point is there are more than enough kids who are prepared well enough to shine in these top universities.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Failure of American public school system has never been a lack of star students, the children who grow up and populate all these prestigious universities. The failure of American public school systems is that some systems lose students along the way, teach in a way that is a disservice to students, or crush the creativity of certain students. There are more than enough people that flee from the bad school systems either by moving to an area that has better public schools or sending their kids to private schools.
Being the best university does not mean you graduate the best students, just fyi. There are many factors that go into ratings, depending on what the ratings are. Generally these international rankings look at things like research conducted by university faculty, peer review, etc., and in these categories American schools blast pretty much everybody out of the water.
But in terms of knowledge... I don't think American schools are really better at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level they are, simply because you are working with better researchers, but at the undergraduate level I think most students go through college without ever really working hard. It's all just beer, babes, and marijuana.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
England has Oxford, Cambridge, and that's it. I don't mean to make little of any other English schools, but while you have 2 in the top 10, I doubt you have even 5 in the top 100.
[Edit: my mistake -- a few English schools did not come to mind right away that really are prestigious.]
As for "best in the world," Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT and CalTech are regarded as being on the same level. We have probably about 70 of the top 100 in just about any international ranking. That's what thread op is talking about.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
England has Oxford, Cambridge, and that's it. I don't mean to make little of any other English schools, but while you have 2 in the top 10, I doubt you have even 5 in the top 100.
As for "best in the world," Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT and CalTech are regarded as being on the same level. We have probably about 70 of the top 100 in just about any international ranking. That's what thread op is talking about.
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
There's a ton of international students, even at the public universities (I went to UCLA). Despite them paying a huge tuition (I played less than 1/5 of what they did being from California) there's enough that whenever I go abroad I'll meet at least one person who knows someone at UCLA. Not to mention that people abroad have even heard of my public school tells you it's fairly international.
As someone else mentioned, America has been a haven for war torn Europe in the first half the 20th Century, but even in the 2nd half the 20th Century, America continued to receive intellectuals from Eastern Europe (Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel walked across the Hungarian-Austrian border for example). Not to mention the Asian intellectuals from S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan while those countries rebuilt from WW2 and lingering political reasons (S. Korea and Taiwan weren't always democracies and China had that entire civil war and other things of course).
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Granted, Oxford and Edinburgh will make any list of top universities, but so would every single Ivy League University, which is why he said 'nearly all' and 'the best universities' plural.
Edit: Looks like I'm late to this party, Edinburgh seems to jump up and down these lists and for some reason I keep thinking Oxford and Cambridge are two sides of the same school (boy is that not the case).
I think there is a positive feedback loop -- universities in America are known to be good, attract tens of thousands of the brightest overseas / international students (and brightest American students too), they go on to make great discoveries and add to the prestige of such schools. They then get more funding / endowment, and buy new things to make them look even better ^^
Im pretty sure that every school in the top 10 are soo close to each other it really doesn't matter what position they are. We just loooove to rank shit though.
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
There's a ton of international students, even at the public universities (I went to UCLA). Despite them paying a huge tuition (I played less than 1/5 of what they did being from California) there's enough that whenever I go abroad I'll meet at least one person who knows someone at UCLA. Not to mention that people abroad have even heard of my public school tells you it's fairly international.
As someone else mentioned, America has been a haven for war torn Europe in the first half the 20th Century, but even in the 2nd half the 20th Century, America continued to receive intellectuals from Eastern Europe (Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel walked across the Hungarian-Austrian border for example). Not to mention the Asian intellectuals from S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan while those countries rebuilt from WW2 and lingering political reasons (S. Korea and Taiwan weren't always democracies and China had that entire civil war and other things of course).
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Granted, Oxford and Edinburgh will make any list of top universities, but so would every single Ivy League University, which is why he said 'nearly all' and 'the best universities' plural.
Edit: Looks like I'm late to this party, Edinburgh seems to jump up and down these lists and for some reason I keep thinking Oxford and Cambridge are two sides of the same school (boy is that not the case).
not every ivy. cornell, brown, dartmouth are nothing like harvard, yale, princeton, columbia, upenn.
There are plenty of really good high schools in America. And frankly, how good can a high school be?
Honestly, the quality of a school is pretty much just it's location (factoring in the quality of living in that location). The place where I'm from, the public schools were all very good. But if I drive to a certain part of downtown, there are tons of "bad" schools, which, not coincidentally, happen to be where the low-income housing is.
Basically, if you're rich, you won't be affected by the "bad" education system in America. (I don't mean filthy rich, I mean like upper-middle class or even middle-class.)
It's really hard to improve those bad schools because the kids just aren't living in an environment outside of school that is conducive to learning. Of course, there will be some exceptions in kids that have a lot of determination and passion for learning, but those are typically outliers.
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
There's a ton of international students, even at the public universities (I went to UCLA). Despite them paying a huge tuition (I played less than 1/5 of what they did being from California) there's enough that whenever I go abroad I'll meet at least one person who knows someone at UCLA. Not to mention that people abroad have even heard of my public school tells you it's fairly international.
As someone else mentioned, America has been a haven for war torn Europe in the first half the 20th Century, but even in the 2nd half the 20th Century, America continued to receive intellectuals from Eastern Europe (Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel walked across the Hungarian-Austrian border for example). Not to mention the Asian intellectuals from S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan while those countries rebuilt from WW2 and lingering political reasons (S. Korea and Taiwan weren't always democracies and China had that entire civil war and other things of course).
On September 24 2011 03:40 silverstone12 wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Granted, Oxford and Edinburgh will make any list of top universities, but so would every single Ivy League University, which is why he said 'nearly all' and 'the best universities' plural.
Edit: Looks like I'm late to this party, Edinburgh seems to jump up and down these lists and for some reason I keep thinking Oxford and Cambridge are two sides of the same school (boy is that not the case).
not every ivy. cornell, brown, dartmouth are nothing like harvard, yale, princeton, columbia, upenn.
I think its a bit of a stretch to say those 3 are "nothing" like them as those 3 are still pretty highly ranked.
What you are seeing OP is the difference between a school run by a market, which has profound economic incentives to win customers over, and a school run by the government and a board of bureaucrats who spend more time protecting their own asses and lobbying the government and the people for more money instead of actually improving the level of education that children are receiving.
The solution to fixing public schools is elegantly simple, but something the teacher's unions would never let happen over their dead bodies:
You take all the money that the federal and local governments are giving to school and school boards, and you instead give that money to parents in the form of vouchers that they can use to send their kids to school. You could even set up a progressive way of distributing the money, with a higher percentage for low income families as opposed to high income, I'm sure the TL left-wingers would love that.
The point now is that the PARENTS have the money and the control, they can decide where to spend that money and where to send their kids to school. Now the schools have the normal market incentives that any business in the world has, to improve the quality of their product and cut costs, and they have to face COMPETITION. When you have a monopoly on education, of course the quality of education is going to be shit. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that. Put the choice in the hands of parents and make the schools compete to improve the education children receive. Problem solved overnight.
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
There's a ton of international students, even at the public universities (I went to UCLA). Despite them paying a huge tuition (I played less than 1/5 of what they did being from California) there's enough that whenever I go abroad I'll meet at least one person who knows someone at UCLA. Not to mention that people abroad have even heard of my public school tells you it's fairly international.
As someone else mentioned, America has been a haven for war torn Europe in the first half the 20th Century, but even in the 2nd half the 20th Century, America continued to receive intellectuals from Eastern Europe (Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel walked across the Hungarian-Austrian border for example). Not to mention the Asian intellectuals from S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan while those countries rebuilt from WW2 and lingering political reasons (S. Korea and Taiwan weren't always democracies and China had that entire civil war and other things of course).
On September 24 2011 03:40 silverstone12 wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Granted, Oxford and Edinburgh will make any list of top universities, but so would every single Ivy League University, which is why he said 'nearly all' and 'the best universities' plural.
Edit: Looks like I'm late to this party, Edinburgh seems to jump up and down these lists and for some reason I keep thinking Oxford and Cambridge are two sides of the same school (boy is that not the case).
not every ivy. cornell, brown, dartmouth are nothing like harvard, yale, princeton, columbia, upenn.
True, but there's Caltech, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley (varies in ranking, but rankings heavy on research place it VERY highly, similarly UCLA and UCSD)...
On September 24 2011 04:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: What you are seeing OP is the difference between a school run by a market, which has profound economic incentives to win customers over, and a school run by the government and a board of bureaucrats who spend more time protecting their own asses and lobbying the government and the people for more money instead of actually improving the level of education that children are receiving.
The solution to fixing public schools is elegantly simple, but something the teacher's unions would never let happen over their dead bodies:
You take all the money that the federal and local governments are giving to school and school boards, and you instead give that money to parents in the form of vouchers that they can use to send their kids to school. You could even set up a progressive way of distributing the money, with a higher percentage for low income families as opposed to high income, I'm sure the TL left-wingers would love that.
The point now is that the PARENTS have the money and the control, they can decide where to spend that money and where to send their kids to school. Now the schools have the normal market incentives that any business in the world has, to improve the quality of their product and cut costs, and they have to face COMPETITION. When you have a monopoly on education, of course the quality of education is going to be shit. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that. Put the choice in the hands of parents and make the schools compete to improve the education children receive. Problem solved overnight.
Okay, let's say we do that for a second. And let's just give an example with 5 schools.
They go in order, ABCDE. A being awesome, E being shit.
A naturally gets flooded with invites. The progressive society we are, we give more money to the poor, and A is filled with underprivileged kids.
Can parents buy more vouchers? Because the rich parents wouldn't stand for their kids going to a school that's inferior to another one, that a bunch of poor kids are going to. They'll schmooze or bribe, or basically try to create incentives for the great teachers from school A, to go to B, or C.
You'll also have a lot that you'll have to deal with in terms of crowding. If all are equal, and still mandatory, how would you decide where to stop letting students in?
Sure, let the market decide how much each school charges to take kids in, but what you'll basically have is parents will use their whole voucher to get their kids into school, OR, if you can buy additional vouchers, rich people will basically crowd out the poor people and we'll have a situation even worse than we have right now
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
There's a ton of international students, even at the public universities (I went to UCLA). Despite them paying a huge tuition (I played less than 1/5 of what they did being from California) there's enough that whenever I go abroad I'll meet at least one person who knows someone at UCLA. Not to mention that people abroad have even heard of my public school tells you it's fairly international.
As someone else mentioned, America has been a haven for war torn Europe in the first half the 20th Century, but even in the 2nd half the 20th Century, America continued to receive intellectuals from Eastern Europe (Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel walked across the Hungarian-Austrian border for example). Not to mention the Asian intellectuals from S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan while those countries rebuilt from WW2 and lingering political reasons (S. Korea and Taiwan weren't always democracies and China had that entire civil war and other things of course).
On September 24 2011 03:40 silverstone12 wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Granted, Oxford and Edinburgh will make any list of top universities, but so would every single Ivy League University, which is why he said 'nearly all' and 'the best universities' plural.
Edit: Looks like I'm late to this party, Edinburgh seems to jump up and down these lists and for some reason I keep thinking Oxford and Cambridge are two sides of the same school (boy is that not the case).
not every ivy. cornell, brown, dartmouth are nothing like harvard, yale, princeton, columbia, upenn.
I think its a bit of a stretch to say those 3 are "nothing" like them as those 3 are still pretty highly ranked.
Ah yeah, exaggerated a bit. I was thinking more along the lines of college rankings haha.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
United Kingdom has universities which equal/surpass USA universities, after all Harvard was modelled after Cambridge and Oxford, cannot beat the original.
On September 24 2011 04:00 ToxNub wrote: If you had gone to an American university you would know this isn't a paradox.
Yeah well, most of my peers at PENN (not penn state ) were american but none them studied at a public school.. so yeah it isn't a paradox.
That's more of an East Coast situation though. Out on the West Coast most kids do go to public K-12, granted some of those public schools are charter/magnet programs but those are still public. For sure most of my college peers went to schools in affluent areas, but that's to be expected no?
The real thing about America that people don't realize is just how big the wealth gap is, and just how rural parts of the country can be (I can dig up some articles about some communities that still don't have running water or where they survive on subsistence hunting/farming if you like).
On September 24 2011 01:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
That's an interesting note.
I didn't know there were so many international students.
There's a ton of international students, even at the public universities (I went to UCLA). Despite them paying a huge tuition (I played less than 1/5 of what they did being from California) there's enough that whenever I go abroad I'll meet at least one person who knows someone at UCLA. Not to mention that people abroad have even heard of my public school tells you it's fairly international.
As someone else mentioned, America has been a haven for war torn Europe in the first half the 20th Century, but even in the 2nd half the 20th Century, America continued to receive intellectuals from Eastern Europe (Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel walked across the Hungarian-Austrian border for example). Not to mention the Asian intellectuals from S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan while those countries rebuilt from WW2 and lingering political reasons (S. Korea and Taiwan weren't always democracies and China had that entire civil war and other things of course).
On September 24 2011 03:40 silverstone12 wrote:
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close. ?
i am fairly sure the best university in the world is English
Granted, Oxford and Edinburgh will make any list of top universities, but so would every single Ivy League University, which is why he said 'nearly all' and 'the best universities' plural.
Edit: Looks like I'm late to this party, Edinburgh seems to jump up and down these lists and for some reason I keep thinking Oxford and Cambridge are two sides of the same school (boy is that not the case).
not every ivy. cornell, brown, dartmouth are nothing like harvard, yale, princeton, columbia, upenn.
I think its a bit of a stretch to say those 3 are "nothing" like them as those 3 are still pretty highly ranked.
Ah yeah, exaggerated a bit. I was thinking more along the lines of college rankings haha.
I like to make fun of Brown too, but realistically it's pretty highly ranked.
The public school system is not that bad. Many people say it is terrible because it could be much, much better, and I would agree. However, I disagree with people who promote drastic change at the risk of losing what we have.
For the most part, the reason people in America think the school system is bad is because they have grown to believe that it is solely the school system's irresponsibility to educate our kids. Thus, irresponsible and lazy parents absolve themselves of all responsibility and then complain about the school system. On the other hand, responsible parents create responsible and well educated children who go on to do great things at our universities.
Really with all the money put into education, any child could get a remarkable education.It's up to the child and parent to make that happen.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
The people who make these rankings are inept writers of American newspapers/sites, what did you think they'd do?
On September 24 2011 04:39 Doppelganger wrote: It is ironic that a topic about the "bad school system" gets a first page that drowns in mistakes.
Normally I would not complain as someone who is not a native speaker and is kinda relaxed on the topic. But this time it is really bad.
Well, hopefully you've noticed by now that the first page of any thread is usually the worst. You will always find the most one-liners there and simplistic arguments. I guess mostly because people who post the fastest are not thinking as hard about their responses, it's more like an immediate reaction. Also, some people just like being the first to post, even if they really don't have anything quality to say
First of all, in my opinion, the best Universities are ones that can teach better and take a student with very little and train him to be amazing.
The Ivy League schools have a bias in whom they accept, they already accept students that were phenomenal beforehand and have the drive already -- basically they take really good students and the end result is good academic work. However, money is also an issue at a school that relies on such prestige and therefore you have a social economic bias as well which also influences education and attainment.
I had a colleague in highschool that got accepted to Harvard and went -- he was not even the brightest we had but he could definitely afford it whereas others cannot.
I'd say the success of those schools is on the brand name -- the prestige associated with "Yale" or "Harvard" and if you look at specializations, those schools are not #1 for many programs and student success.
That's a lot of money spent per student for elementary and secondary schools. Do you really think more needs to be spent per year to get them a good education? I think the best and brightest that want to teach become college professors. They go through a much more rigorous hiring process than a k-12 teacher does and more is expected of them.
That number is on average for the country, remember that each individual state decides the budget for education in their state. New Jersey spends $14,000 per student while Arizona spends $6,000.
In my experience, it seems a large part of it is standards. The minimum standards needed to pass in america are much lower than in other countries. However, there really are no maximum standards. By that I mean, nothing is certain to get you anything. As a result, the top students are always in competition. Pretty much no university will have any criterion which, assuming you have it, you are certain to get in. At least, not for graduate school. Then, a significant portion of students are international students, meaning they as well as the domestic students are competing globally and forced to be even more impressive.
On September 24 2011 02:49 YeahScience wrote: I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
That's because you went to bad schools in the US. Community college to a state school (and I'm betting it's not Berkeley or UVA)? Sorry to break it to you, but at least there's still a chance for you to get into a good graduate school.
The only universities that can compete with the top US ones (HYPSM. No, not UPenn or Columbia, they are quite good but not HYPSM level.) are Oxford and Cambridge. No, not UCL or LSE. We're talking overall prestige. Next tier is 5-20, and drawing from US News, ARWU, THE, and QS, it's schools like the rest of the Ivys, UChicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, CalTech, Berkeley, UCLA, etc.
On September 24 2011 03:11 ThaZenith wrote: Whatever anyone says, it's almost purely because of the length of the school year for American kids. Something like 30% less days, and a summer break so long kids forget everything they learned.
With more days and better managed breaks, they'd be fine.
This would be an awesome point, except the American colleges have longer summer vacations and even fewer days than high schools, yet they do well.
I find it just as paradoxical to say that some of the best Universities are in China, Singapore, etc. when students from those countries are coming to the U.S, Canada, and Britain to study.
America is 1 percent shitting on the other 99 percent who want to be like the 1 percent and desperately try to look like that top 1 percent instead of being them fucking selves. That upper 1 percent is really smart or rich or both.
the university system in the US is completely separate from the primary school system in the US.
Also, the US had a pretty good headstart, after WW2 when we took all the best scientists from Europe. While the rest of the world was in shambles, we discovered a ton of shit and invented a ton of shit. With that lead, we started recruiting the smartest people from other countries to our universities as well to continue our lead.
Also, the culture in the US is very much favoring innovation.
On September 24 2011 02:49 YeahScience wrote: I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
That's because you went to bad schools in the US. Community college to a state school (and I'm betting it's not Berkeley or UVA)? Sorry to break it to you, but at least there's still a chance for you to get into a good graduate school.
The only universities that can compete with the top US ones (HYPSM. No, not UPenn or Columbia, they are quite good but not HYPSM level.) are Oxford and Cambridge. No, not UCL or LSE. We're talking overall prestige. Next tier is 5-20, and drawing from US News, ARWU, THE, and QS, it's schools like the rest of the Ivys, UChicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, CalTech, Berkeley, UCLA, etc.
The fact that you went from CC to state school and have still set yourself up to succeed shows that our college system works fine as long as the student works hard enough. But like YeahScience wrote you probably didn't attend a school that is highly ranked, where the University does more to help you.
When I was at private college (Linfield) there was a lot more 1 on 1 time with professors, they got to know you, required you to be in class and cared about your future, or at least cared about how it reflected on them. I enjoy the University of Washington more, mostly because it's $25,000 less per year but that faculty support isn't as prevalent. They just have too many kids.
On September 24 2011 04:56 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: the university system in the US is completely separate from the primary school system in the US.
Also, the US had a pretty good headstart, after WW2 when we took all the best scientists from Europe. While the rest of the world was in shambles, we discovered a ton of shit and invented a ton of shit. With that lead, we started recruiting the smartest people from other countries to our universities as well to continue our lead.
Also, the culture in the US is very much favoring innovation.
Just wanted to say, this is a very good reply to the question.
I picked my university over a reputation that's been there for ages, and was only cultivated because a group of innovative, highly intelligent people wanted to create a place for excellent learning, and so did all of the people from Asia and Europe who study with me.
American public school system really isn't as bad as all the political cartoons and hype would have you believe.
I know a few teachers, and we really do teach a lot of stuff. I'm not saying it's the best in the world, but it's not accurate to say our public school system is this useless heap. We just aren't allowed to stop pandering to kids who don't want to learn, which means the bottom half of our public schools is remedial crap that is just short of dropping out. Advanced public school classes really do teach a lot, I learned a ton.
Though, I am from Massachusetts, and we were ranked #1 public schools in the country recently, so I am certainly not seeing the whole picture.
On September 24 2011 04:54 GrimmJ wrote: I find it just as paradoxical to say that some of the best Universities are in China, Singapore, etc. when students from those countries are coming to the U.S, Canada, and Britain to study.
Those universities weren't good when people were going to USA/Britain, now that they're back and improving their own universities it's starting to show. The "brain drain" will slowly be phased out when they understand that their own universities are just as good.
Though it still holds some social value if you've studied at Harvard in Asia I guess.
High schools are a fucking joke in this country for the most part, they do a piss-poor job of actually preparing students for college, or the real world assuming they arent going to college immediately afterwards.
College mostly caters to the rich. You can get some good scholarships but if you dont get one have fun paying off your loans for the next 20 years.
Still, my state is better then most, with the HOPE scholarship, assuming you had at least a 3.0 GPA in highschool and mainstain a 3.0 GPA in college and go to a public state school, then you don't have to pay tuition.
But yeah, just like healthcare here, education is also a commodity, its not a right.
So what is the difference between college and universities? I cant imagine all the people in the US really taking scientific education. i see all these fucking dumb kids talking about going to college and i cant imagine that is anything like a real university where you actually need to have a brain.
I don't think there is a paradox. The United States is an immensely large country with a great number of universities and an even greater number of high schools. It is easy to hear a lot about individual great universities because they are good at projecting their reputations nationwide and internationally. On the other hand, high schools tend to all be lumped together (how prestigious can a high school get, really?) so it is more common to hear about collective failures.
The perception of a paradox stems from the fact that the small number of really awesome universities far outshine the apparently crappy high schools. Don't worry; there are many crappy colleges in the US as well, and a small handful of notable (but not internationally newsworthy) high schools. It's all the big-name universities, both public and private, that continue to give the United States its self-perpetuating powerful education system.
Public schools aren't that bad because in my experience they are pretty good at segregating the smartest students and giving them the best education through gifted programs. In a country with 300 million people and a ton of money, it's not hard to nurture the top tier of students to fill the seats in good universities.
On September 24 2011 05:21 Enki wrote: College mostly caters to the rich. You can get some good scholarships but if you dont get one have fun paying off your loans for the next 20 years.
Still, my state is better then most, with the HOPE scholarship, assuming you had at least a 3.0 GPA in highschool and mainstain a 3.0 GPA in college and go to a public state school, then you don't have to pay tuition.
But yeah, just like healthcare here, education is also a commodity, its not a right.
I strongly disagree here; what is unique about the United States is that there are many reputable public universities which are on-par with (or even outclass) private universities. You need not be rich, or even reliant on scholarships, to afford an amazing education.
I finished my degree without the HOPE scholarship (guessing you're talking about Georgia), and what brought me to Atlanta in the first place was that the cost of education was so much cheaper than what I was paying in-state in California. The overall advantage the US has is the array of educational choices.
Most public schools are shit as you said. Mine was terrible. Didn't prepare me for anything when i got to college. Even then people that go to college in the US aren't that smart either. There are a ton of community colleges that people go to. I know a ton of people at my community college that never did work nor studied. Seemed like an extension of high school for them.
Then there's people who actually give a shit and try to study. Also many of the big colleges you probably hear about and think of like Harvard, Yell, Duke, MIT, etc., get their students from private/prep schools that have exceptional students and require a high tuition. These type of 'high schools' require a lot to go there. Uniforms, high tuition, intelligence, some require special academics as well as community service.
The kids from these places go to the universities you think of, most likely. For example, my state has a school "Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences, and the Arts" which requires transcript, sat or act scores and 3 letters of recommendation. Public schools are just there to get you a basic education, at least that's how it's scene in many cases.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
Don't private universities still receive the majority of their funding from the government though?
On September 24 2011 05:24 Tommie wrote: So what is the difference between college and universities? I cant imagine all the people in the US really taking scientific education. i see all these fucking dumb kids talking about going to college and i cant imagine that is anything like a real university where you actually need to have a brain.
In the US, "college" and "university" are used interchangeably for many scenarios. However a university is usually made up of several colleges (sometimes each one will specialize in a different field of study or something), so the general implication is that a university is much larger and offers a wider variety of choices. Colleges are often perceived as smaller but not necessarily 'worse' than the big universities (for example many of the small liberal arts schools are colleges).
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
Don't private universities still receive the majority of their funding from the government though?
No, not directly anyways. Many private schools rely on endowments (donations from alumni and such) as well as tuition. Tuition is sometimes indirectly puffed up the government via loans. Private universities, as well as many high-tier public universities, make a killing from some combination of these factors:
a) research and patents; the discoveries, inventions, and research makes a fuckton of money b) sports; licensing and TV rights greatly inflate the value of many schools c) endowments; as previously mentioned ~ note that most private schools attract far more alumni giving than most public schools but there are always exceptions (UC Berkeley, Georgia Tech, etc.)
On September 24 2011 04:56 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: the university system in the US is completely separate from the primary school system in the US.
Also, the US had a pretty good headstart, after WW2 when we took all the best scientists from Europe. While the rest of the world was in shambles, we discovered a ton of shit and invented a ton of shit. With that lead, we started recruiting the smartest people from other countries to our universities as well to continue our lead.
Also, the culture in the US is very much favoring innovation.
You are only partially correct. Ill address several misconceptions in your post. First, America took the lead in Nobel laureates over Germany before WWII. This lead in top scientists grew as fascist and despotic governments began to show themselves and scientists in those countries began to flee to a safer haven, the US. Einstein is the most well known but there were others like Fermi and Bohr.
At the end of WWII, the US, Russia and Britain all made attempts to round up and import all the top scientists of the defeated countries. Von Braun is the most well known example. The real reason that the US took the lead is because the US had money, much more freedom of movement and sharing of information compared to Russia and was not devastated like much of Europe and Asia.
Today the US is tops among universities because we import a lot of foreign students and professors. The lead that the US gained at the end of the war has been perpetuated by the general practice of many other countries to send their best and brightest students to the US to study where many of them end up staying to teach and research.
On September 24 2011 04:56 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: the university system in the US is completely separate from the primary school system in the US.
Also, the US had a pretty good headstart, after WW2 when we took all the best scientists from Europe. While the rest of the world was in shambles, we discovered a ton of shit and invented a ton of shit. With that lead, we started recruiting the smartest people from other countries to our universities as well to continue our lead.
Also, the culture in the US is very much favoring innovation.
You are only partially correct. Ill address several misconceptions in your post. First, America took the lead in Nobel laureates over Germany before WWII. This lead in top scientists grew as fascist and despotic governments began to show themselves and scientists in those countries began to flee to a safer haven, the US. Einstein is the most well known but there were others like Fermi and Bohr.
At the end of WWII, the US, Russia and Britain all made attempts to round up and import all the top scientists of the defeated countries. Von Braun is the most well known example. The real reason that the US took the lead is because the US had money, much more freedom of movement and sharing of information compared to Russia and was not devastated like much of Europe and Asia.
Today the US is tops among universities because we import a lot of foreign students and professors. The lead that the US gained at the end of the war has been perpetuated by the general practice of many other countries to send their best and brightest students to the US to study where many of them end up staying to teach and research.
I agree here; in a shameless self-plug however, I also sincerely believe there is something unique in American society that really incubates and encourages that sort of academic performance at the highest levels. Some combination of individualism, a perception of being able to truly work your way up, and a spirit of innovation.
These traits aren't necessarily that helpful at the high school level (where the general idea seems to be to get kids disciplined and accepting of basic societal expectations while picking up basic knowledge) ~ however at the college level, the idea of talking back to your professors and openly discussing wildly radical but well-formulated ideas are inherent to the American university experience. I've never seen that at any foreign university I've visited (Philippines, Korea, HK, Japan).
First off, public schools are open to everybody which means they will automatically be lower than universities which have the option to deny people entrance. Also, when Bush created the "No Child Left Behind" program he essentially made a "No Teacher Left Standing" policy because let's face it, some people are just stupid and have no will to learn. This then makes the teacher look bad for being unable to teach a child who has no interest in being taught. I live in America and I have to say, there are a lot of stupid people here. Our universities are so great though because they do not allow the stupid people to attend their university, they only let the most qualified attend, which then makes our universities exceedingly successful
On September 24 2011 05:09 fdsdfg wrote: American public school system really isn't as bad as all the political cartoons and hype would have you believe.
I know a few teachers, and we really do teach a lot of stuff. I'm not saying it's the best in the world, but it's not accurate to say our public school system is this useless heap. We just aren't allowed to stop pandering to kids who don't want to learn, which means the bottom half of our public schools is remedial crap that is just short of dropping out. Advanced public school classes really do teach a lot, I learned a ton.
Though, I am from Massachusetts, and we were ranked #1 public schools in the country recently, so I am certainly not seeing the whole picture.
Maybe not in some parts of the country, but in Chicago, they are SHIT.
They literally tried to bribe kids to attend the first day for public schools since few kids show up.
And if I remember correctly, they're in school for 5 1/2 hours a day. I went to a private high school, and 1-8 periods was 8:10-2:45. I had early dismissal twice, so I actually got out at 2 for two years, but still.
When speaking of universities, they aren't officially private, but they are given the perk of accepting anyone they want and rejecting anyone they want. 3.6 GPA and 28 ACT? Nope, not good enough for *insert school here*.
Lower levels of public education don't get that benefit. Private schools however, do.
So I can say that private schools = public universities in that regard.
A big reason for the difference in quality is the goal of the schools. For almost all public high schools the aim is to get people to graduate, not for the students to actually learn anything but just to get them to graduate. This causes high school teachers to have to structure their teaching around trying to get the people that don't care about school to learn just enough to pass standardized testing so they can graduate. For most high schools that is their only goal.
To contrast that the best universities could care less if you fail out. They want only the best and the brightest to represent their school so it is only those people that graduate. Also if you get into one of these schools it is because you want to be their, so naturally you will do better than high schools students who are forced to go to school.
In my opinion the creation of standardized testing was one of the worst things that could have happened to the public school system because it changes the goal of teaching from learning to passing tests, which wont help at all later in life.
On September 24 2011 04:56 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote: the university system in the US is completely separate from the primary school system in the US.
Also, the US had a pretty good headstart, after WW2 when we took all the best scientists from Europe. While the rest of the world was in shambles, we discovered a ton of shit and invented a ton of shit. With that lead, we started recruiting the smartest people from other countries to our universities as well to continue our lead.
Also, the culture in the US is very much favoring innovation.
You are only partially correct. Ill address several misconceptions in your post. First, America took the lead in Nobel laureates over Germany before WWII. This lead in top scientists grew as fascist and despotic governments began to show themselves and scientists in those countries began to flee to a safer haven, the US. Einstein is the most well known but there were others like Fermi and Bohr.
At the end of WWII, the US, Russia and Britain all made attempts to round up and import all the top scientists of the defeated countries. Von Braun is the most well known example. The real reason that the US took the lead is because the US had money, much more freedom of movement and sharing of information compared to Russia and was not devastated like much of Europe and Asia.
Today the US is tops among universities because we import a lot of foreign students and professors. The lead that the US gained at the end of the war has been perpetuated by the general practice of many other countries to send their best and brightest students to the US to study where many of them end up staying to teach and research.
I agree here; in a shameless self-plug however, I also sincerely believe there is something unique in American society that really incubates and encourages that sort of academic performance at the highest levels. Some combination of individualism, a perception of being able to truly work your way up, and a spirit of innovation.
These traits aren't necessarily that helpful at the high school level (where the general idea seems to be to get kids disciplined and accepting of basic societal expectations while picking up basic knowledge) ~ however at the college level, the idea of talking back to your professors and openly discussing wildly radical but well-formulated ideas are inherent to the American university experience. I've never seen that at any foreign university I've visited (Philippines, Korea, HK, Japan).
Actually I think you touch on an excellent social point. In many Asian countries, there seems to be culture of respect and hierarchy. There may also be a tendency to rely on brute force and blind studying rather than a more creative method which involves some of that questioning of established ideas.
In the US, the sometimes arrogant notion that I know something my superior doesnt can really lead to new ways of looking at problems in science and coming up with new solutions.
There is a big line between a university and a public education system. Going to a university alone assumes that you have enough money invested and meet some requirements of attending said university, that alone factors out a huge block of people. Next you should consider exactly how much money some of these universities make off a single student (mine makes around 13 grand a year off of me alone) then you multiply that by the amount of students that attend and you have an enormous sum of money (not to mention money some of them get from the state). With proper financial support they can afford to hire the good professors (though they often don't -.-), generate a lot of research opportunities, and literally create their own micro economy. In other words American universities are what would happen if a big business took over a school.
American public schools on the other hand are far from efficient, well-funded machines that only selectively choose who can come in. The atrocious American political system leaves many schools under-funded and over-supplied, which stifles any attempt towards improvement. A good chunk of kids going to American schools have no desire to learn or even give a rats ass about anything. Without money and motivation, just about anything suffers.
Also the Americans that do manage to make it into good universities and do well, are generally highly motivated and bright people. Its not like everybody coming from the American public education system is emerging from primordial ooze.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
Don't private universities still receive the majority of their funding from the government though?
The two posters above you are just about as incorrect as you can get.
Any American University/College that starts with University of "State name" - "City name" is a public school which gets state tax money as a major part of its funding. Residents of that state pay much lower tuition (I was paying about 1/5 of what the out of state students paid).
That includes some of the top universities here: Berkeley (University of California - Berkeley), University of Virginia (ok no city name in this one), Michigan (University of Michigan - Ann Arbor), ect.
Most students at my school who are taking real majors (science) are foreigners or American students who have been in private schools their entire academic life prior to their admission. The overwhelming majority of American students however take bullshit majors like business or English that most people can half ass, and those students cry and complain all the time about how miserable their lives are.
Because America is stratified. Our best are the very best, but on average I wouldn't say our colleges and universities are that much better than the rest of the world. There are a lot of bad colleges and universities in America too.
I can't help but laugh at the snide attitude that some people have regarding public schools. I went to a public high school. I had fantastic teachers, many opportunities to take advanced classes and ended up at a great college. The fact of the matter is that if you are smart and work hard, then public schools provide every bit the education a private school can offer. If you have no ambition, you can coast through public school and learn nothing.
As a transfer high school student from Thailand, I agree that U.S. high school system is certainly not as intense as ones in Asian countries. The "honor" and "AP" classes are the same level or even easier and less competitive than regular Asian classes.
Still, less intense academic allows students to enjoy other aspect of life such as sports, clubs, and services (or SCII for me ) without sacrificing their grades or getting too overwhelmed. There is also less competition in the U.S. because there are more colleges option available, unlike in Asian countries where kids would kill themselves to get to a decent college. That's probably why wealthy Asian parents send their kids to the U.S.; they want their kids to be happy.
Edit: Oh, I'm in private school. I guess my experience is not applicable with the thread then >.< I have a friend in Ohio public school, though. He always call me to complain about his overwhelming workload. I guess U.S. public schools' quality depends on what state they are in.
American public schools on the other hand are far from efficient, well-funded machines that only selectively choose who can come in. The atrocious American political system leaves many schools under funded and over supplied, which stifles any attempt towards improvement. A good chunk of kids going to American schools also have no desire to learn or even give a rats ass about anything. Without money and motivation, just about anything suffers.
I think one of the biggest issues plaguing the US public school system is the end goal for every student. US schools seem to operate towards preparing kids for college. What should happen is a tiered system of high schooling which has one level focused on trades, one level focused on professional nondegree careers and the last level focused on preparing students for eventual college education.
On September 24 2011 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote: I'd still be interested to know if anyone has a theory of why Asian countries with top achievement math and science high school scores have such bad universities compared to the US.
I believe this is the result of cultural difference. In Asia, High school is the most important part of your life. The curriculum is STACKED like no tomorrow. Students spends 14h/day just studying and doing HW in order to challenge the exam that decide their whole life.
Elementary and middle school are also much harder and teach materials faster, ask any Asian immigrant who went to school in Asia, it's like you barely learn anything in Math/Science for a few years after coming over. I came over to Canada when I was in the 3rd grade, and until the 8th-9th grade when we learned algebra and trigonometry, I never really found anything significant new in my math classes.
Universities are very different, it's perceived as an award, a chance to finally have a break and have your own life after the insanely stressful time of High school. The most important part of your student life is over, now you just have to coast through. The curriculum is also not as demanding, it's a more specialized approach into your career. Most people aren't used to have a new kind of freedom after high school, so they explore life, have fun + dating (which you weren't really allowed to in High school by parents/teachers). The pursuit of knowledge isn't as strong as one might think, most people studied hard in high school because they had to, not because they wanted to.
In other words, those who study for having a good score far far outnumber those who study because of interest compared to the more liberal approach in the West, where it's kind of the opposite, you drink and have fun in the early years, and catch up later in Uni and focus on where you really want to be.
There are many other reasons, but I believe this is the main cause. For example, I know that in China, those who have the highest score tests often go to become gov't officials rather than researchers.
recall that when universities are being ranked on an international scale, the universities are largely ranked based on their research, the contributions they make to the scientific community, and the famous scientists that came from that school.
A high ranking school for their research, may very well have very bad teachers. It depends on their QA control when it comes to selecting lecturers and granting tenure to the many minds that work at each of those institutions.
One example that may come into consideration is the way graduate students are essentially used as cheap labor by some professors, often placing them under rather strict conditions and a harsh work environment. In some situations, they've been reported to bar their students from transferring facilities so that they have help for an additional year or two, it's not uncommon.
The only paradox occurs when you make the mistake of trying to overly generalize an entire education system that includes differences in public-private, areas of specialty, and grade-level.
Spending 1 trillion dollars a year on the military doesn't help either. This is the main reason why the public school system is so 'bad' because the government cuts money from public schools and puts it into the military.
Private schools are unaffected because they receive and allocate their funds they way they want, whilst public schools get their funding from the government and the value of local real estate.
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
On September 24 2011 06:19 BryanSC wrote: Most students at my school who are taking real majors (science) are foreigners or American students who have been in private schools their entire academic life prior to their admission. The overwhelming majority of American students however take bullshit majors like business or English that most people can half ass, and those students cry and complain all the time about how miserable their lives are.
I dunno about this. I mean I went to public school in High school from being in private school up until then and even I knew that public school was a joke compared to private (damn private HS can be expensive tho for a 1 parent family) But Plenty of my fellow students went into your "real" majors such as engineering/sciences/doctors. Business majors generally do well btw so wtf? The problem with majors like English and some of the other humanities is that too many people are graduating with those degrees and a lot of them require advanced degrees to actually do something in that field such as my own (biological anthropology). As for international students yes they are prevalent but if they stay in the US (I would say a fair amount do) then who cares as they become americans anyway.
At my undergradate university (Michigan State) They have the largest study abroad program in the country so they welcome international students studying here and american students going overseas. Even with this the majority of students at my school seemed to be american kids. Although my one friend who now is doing postgrad work in engineering there says most of the people in his lab are international students.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: .... America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. ...
well your country is by far not old enough to say this and its just not true ^^ well it is not even NEARLY true only the last 100 years america is good in this before ... well sry man but not even top5
On September 24 2011 02:49 YeahScience wrote: I've been in the American public school system my entire life, went to a community college for 2 years before transferring to a state school. I graduated with a science degree and I'm looking to apply to a graduate school this fall. I'd have to say that in general, American colleges are less impressive than foreign ones at the undergraduate level. The students from foreign colleges seem more prepared for tests and have the best knowledge of the subject they're studying.
That's because you went to bad schools in the US. Community college to a state school (and I'm betting it's not Berkeley or UVA)? Sorry to break it to you, but at least there's still a chance for you to get into a good graduate school.
The only universities that can compete with the top US ones (HYPSM. No, not UPenn or Columbia, they are quite good but not HYPSM level.) are Oxford and Cambridge. No, not UCL or LSE. We're talking overall prestige. Next tier is 5-20, and drawing from US News, ARWU, THE, and QS, it's schools like the rest of the Ivys, UChicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, CalTech, Berkeley, UCLA, etc.
The fact that you went from CC to state school and have still set yourself up to succeed shows that our college system works fine as long as the student works hard enough. But like YeahScience wrote you probably didn't attend a school that is highly ranked, where the University does more to help you.
When I was at private college (Linfield) there was a lot more 1 on 1 time with professors, they got to know you, required you to be in class and cared about your future, or at least cared about how it reflected on them. I enjoy the University of Washington more, mostly because it's $25,000 less per year but that faculty support isn't as prevalent. They just have too many kids.
You mixed yourself up a little bit. I'm quoting YeahScience.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
Almost all educational institutions, including universities, are partially subsidized by the government.
America also has the most prohibitively expensive schools in the world.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: .... America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. ...
well your country is by far not old enough to say this and its just not true ^^ well it is not even NEARLY true only the last 100 years america is good in this before ... well sry man but not even top5
Lol America is far too young to ever make that claim for all of history but he said "its history" and in the history of the US existing it has done quite well for itself. Though its defiantly has slipped and I don't think any one country will dominate the way countries/regions have in the past because so many countries are really up there now a days as America/Asia/Europe are all producing good research. The main problem is regions embracing and looking to other regions and not snubbing them because they came from researchers from across the world. It would do a lot of good for collaboration instead of competition (country wise there should still be competition within the scientific community).
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
In grad school the diversity only increases.
Statistic source please?
Anecdotely, in the sciences this was definitely true. Overall I would expect it to be a much lower percentage, which is what the only stats I could find support:
~15% of graduate students are international, I assume it would be higher for undergrad, but maybe not.
Edit: The article is confusing talking about foreign offers and the year-year change in percentage, in the graphs, but I'm pretty sure I'm reading it correctly.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: .... America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. ...
well your country is by far not old enough to say this and its just not true ^^ well it is not even NEARLY true only the last 100 years america is good in this before ... well sry man but not even top5
Well seeing as the world as a whole has made more scientific and industrial progress in the past 100 years than the entire history of humans, I'd say the claim is arguable.
America has the "best" universities in the sense that we act as a magnet for the smart folks of other nations. We have a high standard of living, lots of space and a great reputation of incredible thinkers, so of course it would be highly sought after to come to the United States to raise kids or attend college as an abroad/out of country transfer student.
It's the approach to education and the idea that all the problems of teaching come from low test scores that is causing the problem with the educational system today. It's not really a paradox, just two closely related topics.
Some public schools in very rich neighborhoods or suburbs pay their teachers twice or more what other public schools pay. Whether or not this is fair is another question.
Also, there are a number of private American schools at which, of course, teachers get paid more as well.
In these private schools and rich schools, there is plenty of access to technology, facilities, and the teachers are generally happier and more educated.
Also, rich schools and private schools are often willing to fire teachers, because they get lots of applicants for the teaching positions there.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
Don't private universities still receive the majority of their funding from the government though?
The two posters above you are just about as incorrect as you can get.
Any American University/College that starts with University of "State name" - "City name" is a public school which gets state tax money as a major part of its funding. Residents of that state pay much lower tuition (I was paying about 1/5 of what the out of state students paid).
That includes some of the top universities here: Berkeley (University of California - Berkeley), University of Virginia (ok no city name in this one), Michigan (University of Michigan - Ann Arbor), ect.
The difference between public school and universities is about $50k a year per person.
edit: Also, my high school was very high quality with great teachers. It depends more on the area (better areas get more money for better test scores).
On September 24 2011 07:14 OrangeApples wrote: One thing I've heard was that a lot of better teachers went to teach elsewhere because they're paid very low wages in America.
Grade and High School teachers are underpaid in both Canada and the US, considering the difficulty of their job.
Public school basically either burns teachers out or turns them into worse teachers, to put it simply. I know it's hard to appreciate if you've never taught before, but trust me.
I taught ONE continuing-ed class at a local college for a couple years. It was only 3 hours with 15 adult students, and I was surprised by how exhausting it was, not including the extra six to seven hours extra I was doing; preparing material, marking projects, and just trying to be a good teacher.
I can't imagine teaching kids 6 to 8 hours a day with a class of 30 students. It would be like doing stand-up comedy 6 hours a day to the same 30 people (none of which really want to be there) for 5 days a week, for 9 months. On top of that, you would have to mark 60 to 80 assignments a week in your spare time, which is like answering really bad, shitty mail.
Public schools suck because the system forces teachers to be shitty. If you ever meet a good teacher that constantly inspires you and keeps you engaged, give them the props they deserve.
dont the US only truely dominate the university charts made by US companies? there seems to be a lot of variability, with about 50% US in some versions, going up to 100% us top 16 made by others.
On September 24 2011 07:34 Holykitty wrote: dont the US only truely dominate the university charts made by US companies? there seems to be a lot of variability, with about 50% US in some versions, going up to 100% us top 16 made by others.
Probably because of Bias. I would say the prime difference is money and opportunities due to perceived prestige. You have to remember in academics there is a lot of elitism. In actually being able to teach and put out good students most of the top universities are similar but in research dollars there probably isn't many schools that can compare to the top US ones outside of a few.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
Don't private universities still receive the majority of their funding from the government though?
The two posters above you are just about as incorrect as you can get.
Any American University/College that starts with University of "State name" - "City name" is a public school which gets state tax money as a major part of its funding. Residents of that state pay much lower tuition (I was paying about 1/5 of what the out of state students paid).
That includes some of the top universities here: Berkeley (University of California - Berkeley), University of Virginia (ok no city name in this one), Michigan (University of Michigan - Ann Arbor), ect.
Except University of Chicago.
I don't see Illinois in that name ;-).
It is a rule of thumb, but I haven't seen any exceptions yet.
On September 24 2011 02:08 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: I don't think anybody can deny that the American school system is shit, particularly not after seeing Waiting for Superman. That movie's just depressing.
I can. I'm not going to try to make the public ed system to be some paragon of awesome, but Waiting for Superman did a terrible job of making a case that the system is in bad shape. Most people just don't realize this.
On September 24 2011 07:14 OrangeApples wrote: One thing I've heard was that a lot of better teachers went to teach elsewhere because they're paid very low wages in America.
Grade and High School teachers are underpaid in both Canada and the US, considering the difficulty of their job.
Public school basically either burns teachers out or turns them into worse teachers, to put it simply. I know it's hard to appreciate if you've never taught before, but trust me.
I taught ONE continuing-ed class at a local college for a couple years. It was only 3 hours with 15 adult students, and I was surprised by how exhausting it was, not including the extra six to seven hours extra I was doing; preparing material, marking projects, and just trying to be a good teacher.
I can't imagine teaching kids 6 to 8 hours a day with a class of 30 students. It would be like doing stand-up comedy 6 hours a day to the same 30 people (none of which really want to be there) for 5 days a week, for 9 months. On top of that, you would have to mark 60 to 80 assignments a week in your spare time, which is like answering really bad, shitty mail.
Public schools suck because the system forces teachers to be shitty. If you ever meet a good teacher that constantly inspires you and keeps you engaged, give them the props they deserve.
Surprisingly accurate. I'm contractually obligated to work a little over 7 hours a school day. This year I'm working almost double that. Much of my work is for students who don't give a shit no matter what I try. There are few people in this world who can keep it up for a whole career... I'm just lucky this isn't my typical year as a teacher.
It's funny how in my country we consider the american schools very good, but it is because when we say our school sucks it means we have no teachers, no chairs, no books, no school.
There is no paradox. The private schools for primary education /grade school and private colleges are all excellent. The paradox is in s the public school system and the institutions of higher learning. This paradox your seeing is just one of many that is occuring when the middle class of the United States is vanishing like fog in the afternoon sun. The paradigm is shifting from a large well educated middle class to a two tier system where you have either afluence wealth education or a crumbling system. I dont' know enough to assign blame but as far as I know there are alot of reasons why the public system is failing hard. Education is not as important as money. Educators/Teachers are not the best and brightest students (or was this way) and the family structure is failing where 40% of children today have one parent. ( not to say one parent is fail but when that one parent has to work that leaves very little quality time to improve the quality of your children). There is more than enough reasons why the paradox exists today. However I would say the main fall off historically began to occur when (hate to say this) ERA occured and women no longer where focus'd on bringing up awesome kids but wanted to have an awesome career as well. This isn't assigning blame but just pointing out that one parent who is only there intermittantly giving nurturing and assisted learning does not produce alot of quality students.
On September 24 2011 02:08 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: I don't think anybody can deny that the American school system is shit, particularly not after seeing Waiting for Superman. That movie's just depressing.
I can. I'm not going to try to make the public ed system to be some paragon of awesome, but Waiting for Superman did a terrible job of making a case that the system is in bad shape. Most people just don't realize this.
On September 24 2011 07:14 OrangeApples wrote: One thing I've heard was that a lot of better teachers went to teach elsewhere because they're paid very low wages in America.
Grade and High School teachers are underpaid in both Canada and the US, considering the difficulty of their job.
Public school basically either burns teachers out or turns them into worse teachers, to put it simply. I know it's hard to appreciate if you've never taught before, but trust me.
I taught ONE continuing-ed class at a local college for a couple years. It was only 3 hours with 15 adult students, and I was surprised by how exhausting it was, not including the extra six to seven hours extra I was doing; preparing material, marking projects, and just trying to be a good teacher.
I can't imagine teaching kids 6 to 8 hours a day with a class of 30 students. It would be like doing stand-up comedy 6 hours a day to the same 30 people (none of which really want to be there) for 5 days a week, for 9 months. On top of that, you would have to mark 60 to 80 assignments a week in your spare time, which is like answering really bad, shitty mail.
Public schools suck because the system forces teachers to be shitty. If you ever meet a good teacher that constantly inspires you and keeps you engaged, give them the props they deserve.
Surprisingly accurate. I'm contractually obligated to work a little over 7 hours a school day. This year I'm working almost double that. Much of my work is for students who don't give a shit no matter what I try. There are few people in this world who can keep it up for a whole career... I'm just lucky this isn't my typical year as a teacher.
Good luck sir. I'm not sure what makes this year different from the rest but keep fighting the good fight.
Easy to explain: the high schools in America give you a broad view on all of america's youth, while the universities of America do not only gather the elite of the U.S., but that of the whole world.
On September 24 2011 02:08 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: I don't think anybody can deny that the American school system is shit, particularly not after seeing Waiting for Superman. That movie's just depressing.
I can. I'm not going to try to make the public ed system to be some paragon of awesome, but Waiting for Superman did a terrible job of making a case that the system is in bad shape. Most people just don't realize this.
On September 24 2011 07:14 OrangeApples wrote: One thing I've heard was that a lot of better teachers went to teach elsewhere because they're paid very low wages in America.
Grade and High School teachers are underpaid in both Canada and the US, considering the difficulty of their job.
Public school basically either burns teachers out or turns them into worse teachers, to put it simply. I know it's hard to appreciate if you've never taught before, but trust me.
I taught ONE continuing-ed class at a local college for a couple years. It was only 3 hours with 15 adult students, and I was surprised by how exhausting it was, not including the extra six to seven hours extra I was doing; preparing material, marking projects, and just trying to be a good teacher.
I can't imagine teaching kids 6 to 8 hours a day with a class of 30 students. It would be like doing stand-up comedy 6 hours a day to the same 30 people (none of which really want to be there) for 5 days a week, for 9 months. On top of that, you would have to mark 60 to 80 assignments a week in your spare time, which is like answering really bad, shitty mail.
Public schools suck because the system forces teachers to be shitty. If you ever meet a good teacher that constantly inspires you and keeps you engaged, give them the props they deserve.
Surprisingly accurate. I'm contractually obligated to work a little over 7 hours a school day. This year I'm working almost double that. Much of my work is for students who don't give a shit no matter what I try. There are few people in this world who can keep it up for a whole career... I'm just lucky this isn't my typical year as a teacher.
It is a shame, my high school had something like 5000 students, large school due to consolidation of other high schools in the area avg class size was like 32 34ish something like that, and there was a stark difference between the energy of students and teachers comparing one of my random classes to my ap classes. Trying to teach people who would rather be else where seems like an exhausting venture, while teaching those who are attentive and responsive seems quite rewarding. Ofc the ap teachers who were there, been there for a very long time and worked to get such nice classes, which as a newer teacher i'd imagine that the new guy gets stuck with the classes that are less about teaching and more about keeping some in line,(i went to a school with active gang's in the area, in the beginning of the year we'd have a list of shit we would not wear due to fights and crap, worst parts were the parents who sue the on campus police and the school because they man handled their children after they bought shit like brass knuckles and crap to school to start fights.)
The reason is that for the past 2 generations India and China did not have the infrastructure and economy to fully utilize their best mind. As a result the best of the East come to America and make it great. Now that this is no longer necessary, American universities are no longer going to have the edge they used to. Although this will not happens for a while.
In the primary/secondary levels of education here people have very few choices about where they send their children to school (unless they move or enter lotteries for special schools or pay a large amount of money for a private school). Public education is a horrible system here where we are clearly dumping in a lot of money and not getting that much out (as a whole). Teachers are undervalued and underpayed, and there is not enough support at home.
Our universities on the other hand are segregated by merit (and I would venture to say very rarely by money), not location (location segregation carries inherent wealth and racial segregations with it which contribute to the issues in lower levels of education). Colleges which to attract the best and the brightest to add to their prestige and get more money for their programs. As a result they strive to improve their offerings and opportunities (as opposed to primary/secondary school which are guaranteed students). Students are also competing with each other for these schools, so that the best students end up at the best schools the majority of the time, which is win for everyone.
Despite what everyone says, money tends not to be the limiting factor of higher education in America. In general you can afford exactly what you worked for. If you did not work particularly hard in high school and end up going to a community college because you have to raise your grades before you will be excepted at the state school-- you will be able to afford the community college classes with an entry level wage, or some small savings. If you did pretty well in school, you will probably be able to get some small scholarships to assist you with the cost of a state school. Impoverished students receive aid relative to the money their families make to assist more. If you worked extremely hard and pushed yourself beyond what is expected of you (which is entirely independent of the school system you are in-- you can study for AP exams on your own without a class, and go to another school to take them-- you can pursue your interests on your own time and work on projects that can be entered in fairs or competitions, etc), you will get into a top school and be eligible for a wide range of merit based scholarships, and if you are quite poor, not have to pay anything because of it.
In other countries it seems there is a great deal of social pressure and responsibility to do well in your primary and secondary school. Teachers are more valued and respected, and parents are more vested in getting their kids to work hard. The children end up being overall more serious about their education as well.
However, it seems a lot of places do not have the massive university infrastructure the US has because there is so much less competition. Schools are free, there are fewer choices of where to attend, and because many top schools are already established as being in the US, it's harder for foreign schools to break into that. Top students from other countries keep leaving to come to American universities. As long as our top schools have the best students, they will be able to present better opportunities and accomplishments to future students, and continue to keep them coming.
I think its interesting to note, at least in math and science, the majority of the faculty is from other countries. Most of the students in my program are from the US, however. Is this a common phenomenon in other US schools? What about schools outside the US?
For primary education in the US you have three realistic choices: private education, charter schools, and public schools. Private schools are great if you can afford them. They have great facilities, there's often some degree of flexibility in terms of what interests you want to pursue, and you get tons of personal attention. I didn't actually attend a private school, but my parents were considering sending me to one.
Charters schools offer a lot of the same things private schools offer, but they usually have terrible facilities and almost no choice in terms of curriculum. This is the kind of school I attended most of my primary education.
Public schools offer basic facilities, a great deal of choice in curriculum, but you end up learning next to nothing in class.
Personally, I think charter schools show the most promise. Most of their shortcomings are from lack of funding. My school didn't have any sort of science or computer lab, library, or sports equipment. There wasn't enough faculty to teach elective classes, besides language or offer separate AP classes.
Edit: To give you an idea of the size of the school, the graduating class was about 40 students.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths.
University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included.
I am a private Christian school teacher, and I myself am a product of private schooling. That being said, most of my friends went to various public high schools, and their anecdotal experiences were dramatically different. Not all public schools are equal. Some public schools are excellent from what I have heard through others' personal accounts, usually the result of a reasonable administration and several excellent teachers who actually like teenagers, like teaching, and generally are happy to go to work. Also, some public school districts are generally superior to other public school districts. Irvine, California has a global reputation for quality education. Demographics is also a significant factor. This is why inner-city school teachers often get a bonus of some sort (i.e. the federal government "forgives" their students loans if they teach inner-city for at least 3 years).
While I agree that our national public school system needs to continue to work hard to improve its reputation, it is unfair to say that it "sucks" across the board. That is too general a statement. I personally believe public school teachers are handicapped, handcuffed really, by ridiculous and ever progressive (ever liberal...) PC legislation that forces them to teach from bias curriculum. The history text books I use for my classes are secular and PC, so I get to see firsthand the oversimplifications and misleading statements they sometimes use. In their defense, it is difficult to write a proper history text book that states the facts without upsetting at least someone or some group who doesn't feel the author has interpreted those facts fairly. Authors have worldviews and biases, and so do I.
Public schools have their challenges and their failures, but are not ALL bad. I believe the heart of the problem lies with parenting, not schooling. Parents are a child's primary teachers. They can't expect to dump their kids at school and hope they will build the character, discipline, and life skills that are not being taught/enforced at home. But teachers have to deal with both: 1) students who get discipline and love at home; and 2) students who may not get either. In my experience as a teacher, understanding a student's background and life at home offers incredible insight into their motivation and performance at school academically and socially.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
this comment was both concise and true.
I also consider the tests at which we are gauging our academic knowledge are increasingly subjective and outdated, and really don't do the average American student justice.
Don't private universities still receive the majority of their funding from the government though?
The two posters above you are just about as incorrect as you can get.
Any American University/College that starts with University of "State name" - "City name" is a public school which gets state tax money as a major part of its funding. Residents of that state pay much lower tuition (I was paying about 1/5 of what the out of state students paid).
That includes some of the top universities here: Berkeley (University of California - Berkeley), University of Virginia (ok no city name in this one), Michigan (University of Michigan - Ann Arbor), ect.
Except University of Chicago.
I don't see Illinois in that name ;-).
It is a rule of thumb, but I haven't seen any exceptions yet.
oh my bad, i thought you meant state or city lol. nice rule then.
A big part of why American (and some British) universities rank so highly is because research is done in them, in other countries research is done in different institutions so the universities aren't ranked as highly.
Also American universities charge much higher fees than others so they have a lot more money to work with.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths.
University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included.
And the reality is it's not the professors that fuel great education, but often the students themselves. Most professors are highly knowledgeable, some are even geniuses, but they care more about their own work and research than actually teaching in any exceptional or engaging way.
When you put a group of hyper-competitive overachievers together, they're going to push each other and teach themselves.
This thread has been featured for days now, and I still have no idea why this is supposed to be a paradox. By definition a paradox is a situation that physically cannot happen in our perceivable world, and you're asking for people to explain it, thus denying the notion that it's even a paradox. Your op is more of a paradox than the idea o.o
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths.
University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included.
And the reality is it's not the professors that fuel great education, but often the students themselves. Most professors are highly knowledgeable, some are even geniuses, but they care more about their own work and research than actually teaching in any exceptional or engaging way.
When you put a group of hyper-competitive overachievers together, they're going to push each other and teach themselves.
That was not at all my experience. Most of my university profs were excellent teachers who engaged and cared about their students. I can think of at least 7 professors who would know my wife and I by name if they saw us today. I graduated in '07 and she did in '08. I believe you that many professors fit the description you gave (some of your profs perhaps?), but of course not all are like that. Some actually like teaching.
Unfortunately, smart people don't have much incentive to teach below college level (at public schools) because it just doesn't pay well. Also, Americans have a lax attitude toward education in general... thus the curricula are often dry, the teachers barely competent, and the attitude sour.
On September 24 2011 01:54 meadbert wrote: American Universities are really International Universities located in America. There are a ton of students from other countries.
My hall Freshman year had 9 kids including kids from Peru, Taiwan, Thailand and Pakistan.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths.
University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included.
And the reality is it's not the professors that fuel great education, but often the students themselves. Most professors are highly knowledgeable, some are even geniuses, but they care more about their own work and research than actually teaching in any exceptional or engaging way.
When you put a group of hyper-competitive overachievers together, they're going to push each other and teach themselves.
That was not at all my experience. Most of my university profs were excellent teachers who engaged and cared about their students. I can think of at least 7 professors who would know my wife and I by name if they saw us today. I graduated in '07 and she did in '08. I believe you that many professors fit the description you gave (some of your profs perhaps?), but of course not all are like that. Some actually like teaching.
You're right, that's too broad a generalization. I can think of three or four profs that I greatly appreciated that would remember me as well.
Bear in mind I went to an art and design school. So many of the profs I had were not engaged or even current with the trends or technical advancements in their respective specialities. They were teaching on the side for the money, basically. I learned a lot, but I know my fellow students were huge drivers in my self-education, so-to-speak.
It is only a ranking done but some company who probably has vested interests in some of the universities that make the list. There are a lot of shitty universities out here but no one will admit that the place of their higher education was full of a bunch of lazy tenured bitches.
In short, American scholars are constantly progressing toward the integration and understanding of multiple disciplines to act as a dynamic source of knowledge.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Something that may alter your perception of this was brought up in a similar topic on TL, regarding educational reforms. One of the biggest causes of the low effectiveness of public schooling is standardized testing. Many studies have been done on this topic, most notably one that describes how "teaching-to-the-test" is killing creative thinking and critical decision making in youths.
University reputations, however, are more often based on the reputations of their programs and professors. The entrants for universities are pulled from multiple pools, international and private schools included.
And the reality is it's not the professors that fuel great education, but often the students themselves. Most professors are highly knowledgeable, some are even geniuses, but they care more about their own work and research than actually teaching in any exceptional or engaging way.
When you put a group of hyper-competitive overachievers together, they're going to push each other and teach themselves.
That was not at all my experience. Most of my university profs were excellent teachers who engaged and cared about their students. I can think of at least 7 professors who would know my wife and I by name if they saw us today. I graduated in '07 and she did in '08. I believe you that many professors fit the description you gave (some of your profs perhaps?), but of course not all are like that. Some actually like teaching.
You're right, that's too broad a generalization. I can think of three or four profs that I greatly appreciated that would remember me as well.
Bear in mind I went to an art and design school. So many of the profs I had were not engaged or even current with the trends or technical advancements in their respective specialities. They were teaching on the side for the money, basically. I learned a lot, but I know my fellow students were huge drivers in my self-education, so-to-speak.
That is disappointing of some of your teachers. For obvious reasons, no one should teach for the money lol.
You should teach only if you actually enjoy helping people understand concepts. One of my buddies is very intelligent (works for Spacex designing rocket components), but his ability to explain what he knew was always limited when we were young. I think he mostly just felt that his friends wouldn't understand what he was talking about, so he didn't have the patience to even try. His talent for explanation has gotten much better over the years, and now I believe he would be a good teacher, assuming he had patience and for the crap kids pull sometimes (dear God I despise plagiarism...). Maybe he should just teach college...
I always pay close attention whenever someone is trying to explain the rules or strategy involved in a complex game (e.g. chess, spades, starcraft, and the list goes on). If they can explain it in an orderly and concise manner, they likely have the gift/skill of explanation.
EDIT: @Defacer -- I should have mentioned that it was incredibly refreshing to see the words "you're right" at the beginning of your post. Humility is disappointingly rare, so I appreciate it wherever it appears.
Okay, I want to contribute two things here. Some background on me that you might find relevant: I am a Korean-American who went to school in the public school system (terrible school for HS, great for middle and elementary school) and went to college at an Ivy League. So I've seen public/private as well as have knowledge of a high achieving Asian system and our American system.
1) The idea that other countries with higher test scores are socially incapable and thus inferior because due to their stricter and higher scoring school systems is false.
This is a stereotype that I feel as Americans we like to project onto the high achieving systems that seem to not be producing as much on the top end as us. And I feel it is a dangerous thing to feel because it is false. You might say it is more cultural, you might say it is a product of economic/academic inertia from the institutions already in place that help the US stay on top, or whatever other reason. But to say that we as a country have a better high school system merely because we think we socialize better is a joke.
We need to stop giving ourselves excuses by saying "Well at least they aren't socially capable! That's why our system is better!" because that is all it is: an excuse.This is not the reason our system is better... but merely evidence of how far ahead we were that helps us stay far ahead. So although the bold, entrepreneurial nature of our society does wonders to innovate awesome things, it's a joke to assume other countries will remain behind simply because they are less social.
2) American students at the top are very exceptional and make up the engine that keeps America ahead.
Many Americans, despite our lazy stereotype, are incredibly hard working. And these work horses happen to also be extremely intelligent as well as socially very capable. And many of these extremely hard working, social, and intelligent Americans group together at the top universities in America and network with each other. Think about it, the US has a huge population so taking the smartest students out and putting them into the same 20 schools will do wonders. These students synergize not only with the top talent in the US, but also with the brightest students of the world through the international students. You combine all that work ethic, networking, and intelligence with the huge market advantages of the US and you can see why America continues to innovate.
In my opinion, it is off the backs of this extremely talented minority that America rises and continues to be awesome. Think Steven Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. It takes a genius or two to change an entire industry around. However, that does not mean we should not make our secondary schools significantly better. An intelligent, capable, and hard working population to make up the majority of the work force is very important to both increase this pool but also to provide the high tech and complex services the new world economy requires. If US or other international firms do not find capable workers in sufficient supply here, they will go abroad and take their jobs with them.
Well the reason there is a performance difference is that universities only want the best. So through the shitty school system, the people that come out of it not retarded go to universities. The better students go to the more prestigious schools, and are able to contribute to their disciplines and society as you mentioned. As others have mentioned, universities are private and are able to provide a good opportunity for the students that do make it out of the shitty system. Since they don't need 3258902385023 people to come out strong, just enough to fill their seats (and even then, only a few of those will do well anyway).
The problem is that the people who are not in this group, on average, are pretty retarded. Not everyone is working in a biology lab. The people who don't make it to University-level education (not necessarily to go to university, but getting an education good enough so that they would be successful in university) make up a large amount of people.
I'm from Canada and our school system also sucks, yet we also have great Universities. It's just a huge step and most people end up doing a 'degree' in a field and enter the job market. Those who can manage the step between College and University...get good education.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Our good universities are EXPENSIVE. They have the money to actually invest in good tools for educating and people who are smart enough for scholarships / have the money to afford it are actually ( I would hope anyways) really work on their education. The public education system America is really as horrid as it sounds. The non university private schools really aren't that great either. As someone who has been in both public and private I can say I actually had more of a challenge in public school. Although that wasn't much of a challenge either.
EDIT: I think the major problem with the public school system in America is actually getting the students motivated. I went to a fair size high school of about 2K+ students and all I can say is the majority of students just do not care. I am currently in my senior year and people are more worried about homecoming pictures, prom, graduation pictures (some people are spending thousands of dollars on this... wtf?), and all that jazz. Even my fellow "honors / college prep" students don't really care.
Ok, I'm going to throw this out there, but I only know part of the picture. I'm familiar with the educational theories on at least the west coast because western Canada is heavily influenced to the educational trends from western US. I've also talked with some overseas educators that have opinions on overseas schools, but as I've never taught nor learned there, its heresay unless someone else can confirm it.
Western education has for a long time been focusing on critical thinking and problem solving rather than rote memorization. Take a position (right or wrong), look at the evidence and see if you can support it, or else modify your position. For those that learn this, it's a very transferable skill set when you go to university. The part I can't explain is the poor results in the individual classrooms, except that for a lot of students, school is their safest place to be and if there home life is like that, they really won't be performing that well. There's also a greater emphasis on multiple intelligences and teaching to the whole child. However, this sort of educational practices won't necessarily show up in a standardized test.
From overseas educators- it's a lot more rote memorization, drill in the facts. This will allow one to perform very well on standardized tests. Standardized tests are meant to test these sorts of things. However, rote memory is not really the sort of skill set one needs in university.
There's a bunch of stupid answers in this thread. One point are that top American schools are obscenely well funded (due largely to good money management and generous giving from alumni) compared to top schools in other countries. Consequently they get a majority of the best graduate students, the best postdocs, and the best faculty.
Another point is that many top scientists and academics (mostly Jewish, but not all) fled Europe leading up to and during the second World War. This led to a disproportionate amount of the best scientific talent residing in the United States. The rest is basically positive feedback; having the best scientists encourages the remaining top scientists to come to these top research centers, and so on.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
Well, typically I would disagree with you cause you sound pretty anti-gov, but in this I have to agree. My mom works in the public school system and it is pretty terrible. But I don't know if the answer is private schools. Just the thought of private schools scares the shit out of me because students are so easily brainwashed at such a young age that private schools would just breed ignorance and stubborn bigotry. Also, the cycle of poverty would ensue because the poor wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school.
But all in all, something about public education needs to change.
On September 24 2011 15:02 itkovian wrote: Also, the cycle of poverty would ensue because the poor wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school.
We already spend billions of dollars on education...why couldn't that money go to poor parents?
This is really the solution to the problem. Privatize the entire system and subsidize low-income parents. You will create competition, profit incentives, cost-cutting... All the things which lead to success, efficiency, and innovation in the marketplace.
Until then, we will have a monopoly with no incentives to improve. Right now the incentives schools and administrators face are: Spend more money lobbying government for more money, and spend money trying to gain public support for more money. They should be focused entirely on providing a good product to the public, but they don't have to because the public is practically forced to buy the product!
It's all so mind-bogglingly absurd. Nothing gets me more pissed off in politics than hearing the teacher's unions spend millions of dollars on advertisements here in California, and then tell the students they can't afford a $5 ring of paper for the class. It really gets my blood boiling.
I've seen a number of people say this, i'm trying to figure out what countries everyone's talking about when they say things like, "They don't count the poor."
I've studied german for a number of years, and am trying to figure out how they'd do that. I mean, i know they have a different tiered system (Realschule vs Gymnasium vs. Fachschule) but don't know if they'd actively neglect some scores?
I was saying that Germany is similar to the US, where everyone goes to school. Not that Germany doesn't include them.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
Not all American schools are that bad and not all American universities are very good at all. It's not really a paradox. There are good universities for people who went to good schools (and have money). The people who went to the shitty schools go to shitty universities or don't go at all. The best and the worst, that's the American way!
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
The american public school system is ran by the government and they do a horrible job at it. The universities that you are talking about are mostly private schools.... That's about it.
Its easier to sell easy to gain education so they talk it up as its the shit! thats why... wtf @ circle the right answer tests... in Soviet Russia tests DON'T love you! :p
On September 24 2011 13:58 Steel wrote: I'm from Canada and our school system also sucks, yet we also have great Universities. It's just a huge step and most people end up doing a 'degree' in a field and enter the job market. Those who can manage the step between College and University...get good education.
I disagree with this, to be honest. It's far from the universities in US and UK.
I can't read or respond to this OP without reading
I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
over, and over....and over again. Then I ponder why the OP is so confused. Then I ponder what it has to do with country. Then I reread the quotes. It's like a wild loop that just makes my brain hurt.
Public schools suck in Australia as well. There are maybe one or two public schools in each state who happens to be academically selective and do well the rest are just there to make up the numbers.
No way around it, the quality of the school comes from its students and if your students have a culture of not trying then doesn't matter how much resource or money you pour into it it won't change a thing.
The most important thing about education for a student are the motivation, the quality of teachers and support of the parent which is not something you can solve by throwing more money in.
You can't really force a student to learn, good teachers are hard to come by and parents well that's just down to luck...
I don't think the system is broken though, just about every private school in Melbourne offers scholarship and if you really want to succeed and get ahead then you will.
The big problem of course is if your family is not supportive and this is why the Asian excel because their parents are all tiger moms and dads rofl.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country.
That's not paradox. Public schooling is underfunded and attended only by americans, where many are from poor neighbourhoods (dependant on the location). The Elite-Universities are extremly well funded trough private means and are attended either by rich people who can afford it, or by extremly intelligent people with a stipendium from all around the world. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
University rankings are done in the US. I wouldn't put too much stock in "international" university rankings.
Also American universities actively recruit a LOT of foreign talent/students, especially at the graduate level, which is what really matters.
Don't forget the "snowball" effect. Talent will go where other talent already is. And future prestige winners will go where the current prestige already is.
I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
On September 24 2011 16:59 Kaitlin wrote: Universities have to compete against each other for students. Public high schools and below don't. That is all.
At the top, it's absolutely the other way around for university.
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
Its the money bro. People say america has the worst health care in the world. Thats odd cause if your really sick and you got the cash you come here and you get treated and you live. Same thing with the schools yup we got the best ones in the worlds if you got 100grand layin around to go. But us peons dont get those facilitys only the rich
Of the top 10 universities, the top one is in the UK and 3 of the others are in the UK. By comparison, in terms of achievement, the top public schools are directly comparable to the top private schools.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country.
no.
Add.: America is no country.
User was warned for this post
I was wanred, because I say the truth?
America is no country, this is a fact.
Also the statement "America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country." is not true. a) America is no country. b) Propably with "America" the US were ment. But nevertheless this statement is false, he didn't bring any arguments.
1. school level is pretty bad. 2. universities select a lot; but the level is still not that high. 3. Actually level is high at research level, and post graduate/PhD. when you are post graduate, you are in the top students. + The US takes students from all around the world (the brain drain), and therefore benefits from other good educational systems, in Europe and Asia. 4. US universities have a lot of money. But that also means that the fee is high (usually between 20 000 dollars and 30 000 dollars a year.) In comparison, UK is around 6000/10 000; and France about 500 euros. In other words, the US system remains a privilege of the rich.
University rankings are done in the US. I wouldn't put too much stock in "international" university rankings.
Also American universities actively recruit a LOT of foreign talent/students, especially at the graduate level, which is what really matters.
Don't forget the "snowball" effect. Talent will go where other talent already is. And future prestige winners will go where the current prestige already is.
*sigh*
Don't forget that saying something plausible with no proof does not mean the plausibility actually is proof.
University rankings, wherever they are done, at the highest level, are not biased in favor of one country or another. European universities in particular have the prestige, the money, and the powerful alumni to fend for themselves against scurrilous rankings.
Don't forget as well that you contradict yourself, if most of the best the talent is here, if it causes a snowball effect bringing more talent in, then why would it be plausible to think the ratings are wrong?
I was wanred, because I say the truth?
America is no country, this is a fact.
Also the statement "America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country." is not true. a) America is no country. b) Propably with "America" the US were ment. But nevertheless this statement is false, he didn't bring any arguments.
Despite what people on the internet may tell you, "America" is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to the "United States of America."
Also talking about individual countries making scientific discoveries in this day and age is absurd. It hasn't been like that for over 100 years. Except when it comes to discoveries made through military research and development and even then countries in the West have largely cooperated, for 70 years.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
"america", Actually called "THE UNITED STATES of america", since america includes north and south, and since they are collectively called "The Americas", is 26th in math worldwide.
find the movie "waiting for superman". all your questions on "united states" education will be answered.
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
LOL get out of here. University of Vermont is known as a top party school, definitely not Ivy League.
As many have said, America is comprised of the best top tier education, but pretty lackluster education from the middle down. One thing I do think helps overall personal development from the American system is how you can enter college undeclared and really discover what your passions are, to get the most out of your education. Compare that to the British system, where you declare what you study even before you enter university. I think this type of freedom breeds ingenuity, which in turn helps our country develop new companies/technologies.
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
LOL get out of here. University of Vermont is known as a top party school, definitely not Ivy League.
As many have said, America is comprised of the best top tier education, but pretty lackluster education from the middle down. One thing I do think helps overall personal development from the American system is how you can enter college undeclared and really discover what your passions are, to get the most out of your education. Compare that to the British system, where you declare what you study even before you enter university. I think this type of freedom breeds ingenuity, which in turn helps our country develop new companies/technologies.
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
LOL get out of here. University of Vermont is known as a top party school, definitely not Ivy League.
As many have said, America is comprised of the best top tier education, but pretty lackluster education from the middle down. One thing I do think helps overall personal development from the American system is how you can enter college undeclared and really discover what your passions are, to get the most out of your education. Compare that to the British system, where you declare what you study even before you enter university. I think this type of freedom breeds ingenuity, which in turn helps our country develop new companies/technologies.
Just because they are known as a "Public Ivy" doesn't mean these schools are actually good. Also, that list was made in 1985, things have changed since then.
Here's a more recent list:
Here’s the complete list of Princeton Review’s top party schools for 2012:
1. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 2. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 3. University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss. 4. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 5. University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif. 6. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 7. Penn State University, University Park, Pa. 8. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla. 9. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 10. University of Texas, Austin, Texas 11. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12. Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wis. 15. DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind. 16. Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 17. Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. 18. University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 19. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt. 20. University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.
...Although this thread has turned into a huge shitstorm of stupid posts and trolling, I guess I'll try to add a legitimate idea from somebody with a background in education.
American universities are great because they are largely untouched by the public. By that I mean we do not have legislation on what we should teach in them, how it should be taught, or in what language it should be taught--American university professors choose their own reading material, teach how they want, and say what they want in class. They teach knowing that there is no standardized test for students to pass (except in rare cases like pre-med courses), and they can therefore experiment more with less conventional teaching techniques.
American junior high and high school teachers, however, are handcuffed in the classroom. No Child Left Behind (more like No Child Left Untested/No Child Left Educated) is a perfect example as to why; teachers have been forced to teach the material for the test. How do you teach for the test? You teach for the test by explaining the material precisely as it is. You don't ask students to engage in any critical thinking; you cover your ass. Teachers, in fear for their jobs, cannot use modern pedagogical approaches now. They default back into traditional methodologies because that makes them unaccountable for student failure.
Ironically, this leads to actually poorer results. Students are thought of as tabula rasas--blank slates--and teachers banks of knowledge to be passed onto them. The problem with this methodology is American society is not nearly competitive enough to get students to study enough to actually learn something from this. It works in Japan and Korea because economic success in these countries depends entirely on your entrance to a top rate university, which depends entirely on your ability to retain a large amount of what you learned in class. Actual application? Psh. Never thought of.
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
LOL get out of here. University of Vermont is known as a top party school, definitely not Ivy League.
As many have said, America is comprised of the best top tier education, but pretty lackluster education from the middle down. One thing I do think helps overall personal development from the American system is how you can enter college undeclared and really discover what your passions are, to get the most out of your education. Compare that to the British system, where you declare what you study even before you enter university. I think this type of freedom breeds ingenuity, which in turn helps our country develop new companies/technologies.
Just because they are known as a "Public Ivy" doesn't mean these schools are actually good. Also, that list was made in 1985, things have changed since then.
Here's a more recent list:
Here’s the complete list of Princeton Review’s top party schools for 2012:
1. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 2. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 3. University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss. 4. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 5. University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif. 6. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 7. Penn State University, University Park, Pa. 8. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla. 9. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 10. University of Texas, Austin, Texas 11. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12. Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wis. 15. DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind. 16. Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 17. Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. 18. University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 19. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt. 20. University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.
Moll, who earned his Master of Divinity degree from Yale University in 1959,[3] was an admissions officer at Yale, and the director of admissions at Bowdoin College, University of California, Santa Cruz, and Vassar College.[3][4][5] He traveled the nation examining higher education and in particular, identified eight public institutions (the same as the number of Ivy League members) which he thought had the look and feel of an Ivy League university. In addition to academic excellence, other factors considered by Moll include visual appearance, age, and school traditions as well as certain other Ivy League characteristics.
You have an incredible inability to read. If Harvard became a listed party school would you think they don't deserve to be a good school anymore as well?
On September 24 2011 23:48 Truedot wrote: find the movie "waiting for superman". all your questions on "united states" education will be answered.
I wish people would stop saying stuff like this in this thread. I already explained earlier that Waiting for Superman does a poor job of indicating the actual problems with public education in the US, and is highly biased.
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
LOL get out of here. University of Vermont is known as a top party school, definitely not Ivy League.
As many have said, America is comprised of the best top tier education, but pretty lackluster education from the middle down. One thing I do think helps overall personal development from the American system is how you can enter college undeclared and really discover what your passions are, to get the most out of your education. Compare that to the British system, where you declare what you study even before you enter university. I think this type of freedom breeds ingenuity, which in turn helps our country develop new companies/technologies.
Just because they are known as a "Public Ivy" doesn't mean these schools are actually good. Also, that list was made in 1985, things have changed since then.
Here's a more recent list:
Here’s the complete list of Princeton Review’s top party schools for 2012:
1. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 2. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 3. University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss. 4. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 5. University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif. 6. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 7. Penn State University, University Park, Pa. 8. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla. 9. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 10. University of Texas, Austin, Texas 11. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12. Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wis. 15. DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind. 16. Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 17. Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. 18. University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 19. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt. 20. University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.
Moll, who earned his Master of Divinity degree from Yale University in 1959,[3] was an admissions officer at Yale, and the director of admissions at Bowdoin College, University of California, Santa Cruz, and Vassar College.[3][4][5] He traveled the nation examining higher education and in particular, identified eight public institutions (the same as the number of Ivy League members) which he thought had the look and feel of an Ivy League university. In addition to academic excellence, other factors considered by Moll include visual appearance, age, and school traditions as well as certain other Ivy League characteristics.
You have an incredible inability to read. If Harvard became a listed party school would you think they don't deserve to be a good school anymore as well?
Yes, because a school known for partying means not much else is getting done in the school. Not saying there won't be outstanding students or programs, but all in all it is a weak school for academics but good for other things.
If you want some more empirical proof, let's look at the composition of students at U of Vermont to Cornell, which is the largest Ivy league school and so has relatively more relaxed admissions standards.
Vermont: % Applicants Admitted: 70% % Admitted Who Enroll: 19% % in Top 10% of Graduating HS Class: 23% % in Top Quarter of Graduating HS Class: 61% % in Top Half of Graduating HS Class: 97%
Cornell: % Applicants Admitted: 21% % Admitted Who Enroll: 46% % in Top 10% of Graduating HS Class: 87% % in Top Quarter of Graduating HS Class: 98% % in Top Half of Graduating HS Class: 100%
But hey, if you want to compare Vermont to an Ivy League school because of "school traditions" and "visual appearance", go ahead.
I don't know too much about it, but I'd say it factors multiple things: 1) America is by far larger than say an individual european country, and as such should have more of them. 2) I think there are a lot more private universities which do have a lot of money to spend on quality professors that do expensive research. 3) A lot of it is international. People from all over the world study and contribute to the level of the universities in America.
I think those are some factors, that's probably not nearly all.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country.
no.
Add.: America is no country.
User was warned for this post
I was wanred, because I say the truth?
America is no country, this is a fact.
Also the statement "America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country." is not true. a) America is no country. b) Propably with "America" the US were ment. But nevertheless this statement is false, he didn't bring any arguments.
The hilarious irony of it is... what he said, even with the brainless logic that you brought with it, was that America (if not referring to the country would be referring to the two continents) had more scientific and academic discoveries than any country.... which is true, the combined scientific and academic discoveries of two whole continents BETTER be greater than any one country xDDDD
On September 24 2011 18:38 TS-Rupbar wrote: I spent a semester at University of Vermont, UVM, an Ivy League public school. It wasn't better than my public university in Sweden... Maybe the teachers were a bit better, but that's it. Not the facilities etc. My university in Sweden, Linnaeus University in Växjö, is not considered a prestigious university at all apart from maybe the school of economics. I'm in the humanities.
I guess that apart from the very top, schools in developed countries are kind of the same no matter the system. Also, I don't pay anything at all to attend my university in Sweden. Only living expenses.
EDIT: I think people pay too much attention to "prestige". Also, I don't think that you learn significantly better by cramming shit into your head, which is what matters on standardized test scores. For example, I've learned English mostly by surfing TL, listening to music and reading books in English. Still, I was a lot better at English than many other students who crammed.
Then I can only think of all the international people I've meet. They don't seem any better than me at the things we specialize in because they went to a more prestigious high school or university before they came to my class.
LOL get out of here. University of Vermont is known as a top party school, definitely not Ivy League.
As many have said, America is comprised of the best top tier education, but pretty lackluster education from the middle down. One thing I do think helps overall personal development from the American system is how you can enter college undeclared and really discover what your passions are, to get the most out of your education. Compare that to the British system, where you declare what you study even before you enter university. I think this type of freedom breeds ingenuity, which in turn helps our country develop new companies/technologies.
Just because they are known as a "Public Ivy" doesn't mean these schools are actually good. Also, that list was made in 1985, things have changed since then.
Here's a more recent list:
Here’s the complete list of Princeton Review’s top party schools for 2012:
1. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 2. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 3. University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss. 4. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 5. University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif. 6. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 7. Penn State University, University Park, Pa. 8. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla. 9. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 10. University of Texas, Austin, Texas 11. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12. Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wis. 15. DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind. 16. Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 17. Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. 18. University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 19. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt. 20. University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.
Moll, who earned his Master of Divinity degree from Yale University in 1959,[3] was an admissions officer at Yale, and the director of admissions at Bowdoin College, University of California, Santa Cruz, and Vassar College.[3][4][5] He traveled the nation examining higher education and in particular, identified eight public institutions (the same as the number of Ivy League members) which he thought had the look and feel of an Ivy League university. In addition to academic excellence, other factors considered by Moll include visual appearance, age, and school traditions as well as certain other Ivy League characteristics.
You have an incredible inability to read. If Harvard became a listed party school would you think they don't deserve to be a good school anymore as well?
Yes, because a school known for partying means not much else is getting done in the school. Not saying there won't be outstanding students or programs, but all in all it is a weak school for academics but good for other things.
If you want some more empirical proof, let's look at the composition of students at U of Vermont to Cornell, which is the largest Ivy league school and so has relatively more relaxed admissions standards.
Vermont: % Applicants Admitted: 70% % Admitted Who Enroll: 19% % in Top 10% of Graduating HS Class: 23% % in Top Quarter of Graduating HS Class: 61% % in Top Half of Graduating HS Class: 97%
Cornell: % Applicants Admitted: 21% % Admitted Who Enroll: 46% % in Top 10% of Graduating HS Class: 87% % in Top Quarter of Graduating HS Class: 98% % in Top Half of Graduating HS Class: 100%
But hey, if you want to compare Vermont to an Ivy League school because of "school traditions" and "visual appearance", go ahead.
Perhaps if you went to Vermont or Cornell, you'd have a better grasp of what 'empirical proof' means and how it's used.
A lot of schools with a party school reputation are actually extremely excellent. UT, Wisconsin, Illinois, OSU, etc.
You're making a shitty assumption based on your own rationalizations and your own rationalizations suck.
In his defense though, it looks like UofV is not listed in the much more current list of Public Ivy's according the the wikipedia page. (could be a typo though in the list).
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.
i studied in the "high school" system of singapore before transferring to an american public university
1) there is a good reason why we have the best math scores, imo our text books, curriculum is far, far better designed then anything here, much of the calculus i am currently doing (at university level) i vividly remember even though i was taught about 5 years ago. same for the science. but this has in no way prepared me for the aspects of independent learning one needs to develop in order to succeed at higher education. in a sense, we are spoon fed what is important and what isn't in math and science at an early age and i think this kills creativity more or less lol
2) our humanities / liberal education aspect of education is non-existent. students are taught to memorize model essays / formats, taught to have a bank of key paragraphs and quotes to use in essays, teachers focus on the topics that will likely come out on the GCE O / A levels instead of teaching the damm whole thing
3) our national university is pretty well ranked, top 20 at least in times iirc but the issue is that there are plenty of things to say about how this ranking came about. bell curve grading (that disadvantages students graduating), the focus on foreign students % (intl students here pay the same as singaporeans provided they meet the min requirements to apply... which are quite high in their respective countries)
in the end, you get a university that looks great on international exposure scores and undergrad experience on paper but actually studying there as an average local, one would develop a xenophobic outlook whereby the brightest students are foreigners pulling down your grades, overcrowding your canteens.everyone is basically thrown into a kind of academic pressure cooker.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
They aren't all, most aren't private... Stop spouting shit out your ass UCLA,UC Berkley,University of Virginia,University of Michigan - Ann Arbor ;George Tech,UCSD,UC Davis,UCSB,UC Irvine,Penn state,Texas A&M,Virginia Tech, west point(which is as public as it gets) I'm sure given time i could think up more.
that's where shit comes from tho and the op was talking about the "best" ones and those are in my idea private
On September 25 2011 00:49 wwiv wrote: i studied in the "high school" system of singapore before transferring to an american public university
1) there is a good reason why we have the best math scores, imo our text books, curriculum is far, far better designed then anything here, much of the calculus i am currently doing (at university level) i vividly remember even though i was taught about 5 years ago. same for the science. but this has in no way prepared me for the aspects of independent learning one needs to develop in order to succeed at higher education. in a sense, we are spoon fed what is important and what isn't in math and science at an early age and i think this kills creativity more or less lol
2) our humanities / liberal education aspect of education is non-existent. students are taught to memorize model essays / formats, taught to have a bank of key paragraphs and quotes to use in essays, teachers focus on the topics that will likely come out on the GCE O / A levels instead of teaching the damm whole thing
3) our national university is pretty well ranked, top 20 at least in times iirc but the issue is that there are plenty of things to say about how this ranking came about. bell curve grading (that disadvantages students graduating), the focus on foreign students % (intl students here pay the same as singaporeans provided they meet the min requirements to apply... which are quite high in their respective countries)
in the end, you get a university that looks great on international exposure scores and undergrad experience on paper but actually studying there as an average local, one would develop a xenophobic outlook whereby the brightest students are foreigners pulling down your grades, overcrowding your canteens.everyone is basically thrown into a kind of academic pressure cooker.
so yeah, the grass is not greener
This is consistent with some stuff I've heard.
My dad used to work for a mid-sized company designing and implementing lasers (he's an electrical engineer). The boss was supposedly rather insane and did many strange things. One thing he did which wasn't necessarily insane but got the attention of my dad was that he imported lots of recent phd's from asian countries because they were cheaper to hire than locals with similar academic credentials. My dad's experience working with them was that they were very knowledgeable in a very niche area (depending on what they were studying) but lacked adaptability and creativity to be useful in this actual work setting. His sample size was probably rather small though, but it seems explainable by your observations learning in Singapore.
BTW can you indicate more specifically what is better about math curriculum there? So far all you've said is that harder math was introduced earlier... but that doesn't really demonstrate a superior curriculum by itself.
On September 24 2011 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm not from America, but I've heard a lot about how much the American public school system sucks, both from Americans and others.
However, this has always struck me as paradoxical, because America has the best universities in the world -- by far. Nearly all of the top ranked universities are American. No other country is even *remotely* close.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores, yet none of these countries have a university worth a damn, I think none these even have a university ranked in the top 20.
Anyone want to shred some light on this seeming paradox?
Lack of good teachers, lack of decent parting, lack of school funding, lack of the child's interest all lead to our lower level schools being rated poorly, but just because that is true doesn't mean the universities have to be poor as well. For those who make it past the lower level and care to go to the next step they pay the universities for the quality that they have now. Because those universities are private they are held to a much higher standard than the poorly run government schools.
You also have to keep in mind that the students in China, Korea,Singapore, and Southeast Asia are the elite of their country. Most of the students in said countries do not come close to rivaling these scores.
And just like that, the United States does have a brilliant primary school students. However, there is also a large number that most of the time overshadows this group. In the United States since our schooling is public and nationwide, then we factor in these everyone, not just our elite.
I've always wondered, whats the difference between college and university in the USA? Here, only the smartasses can go to univeresity. So i guess thats the same in the US? the top 10% go to university and the others go to college?
On September 25 2011 00:56 micronesia wrote: BTW can you indicate more specifically what is better about math curriculum there? So far all you've said is that harder math was introduced earlier... but that doesn't really demonstrate a superior curriculum by itself.
this is gonna be a little subjective but for example in differentiation, the first thing we were taught were all the formulas or the "shortcuts", students dont ever hear the phase "instantaneous rate of change" neither will they ever be quizzed on the definition but by the end of the term, they will be pretty darn good at it
On September 25 2011 00:56 micronesia wrote: BTW can you indicate more specifically what is better about math curriculum there? So far all you've said is that harder math was introduced earlier... but that doesn't really demonstrate a superior curriculum by itself.
this is gonna be a little subjective but for example in differentiation, the first thing we were taught were all the formulas or the "shortcuts", students dont ever hear the phase "instantaneous rate of change" neither will they ever be quizzed on the definition but by the end of the term, they will be pretty darn good at it
Why do you think that makes for a 'better' curriculum?
There are tons of public universities, but the majority of them are insanely fucking hard to get into.
They almost literally force you to have some sort tragic past or life changing experience. They base their admission mainly on the entrance essay(s) and they only accept kids who are "special"
And plus it costs 20 years of post college debt anyway.
IMO The universities are good, but theres a shitton of tradeoffs
Why do you think that makes for a 'better' curriculum?
for a high school kid, i think there is more value in being able to apply those mathematical formulas correctly rather den being able to explain the process or what it means.
Part of the problem is that the bad testing stats about American public schools are about national averages. There are plenty of areas, cities, and even entire states where the public high schools are actually pretty good by international standards.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country.
no.
Add.: America is no country.
User was warned for this post
I was wanred, because I say the truth?
America is no country, this is a fact.
Also the statement "America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country." is not true. a) America is no country. b) Propably with "America" the US were ment. But nevertheless this statement is false, he didn't bring any arguments.
The hilarious irony of it is... what he said, even with the brainless logic that you brought with it, was that America (if not referring to the country would be referring to the two continents) had more scientific and academic discoveries than any country.... which is true, the combined scientific and academic discoveries of two whole continents BETTER be greater than any one country xDDDD
It depends on what you call scientific and academic discoveries, but america is only active in science since a little more than 500 years and most of it was spent with killing people (natives, each other, etc.)
Most of the real groundbreaking technologies come from europe and asia, only since about 200 years does the US even matter in science, and what exactly did they develop since then? It's all based on other work (and funnily enough often developed by immigrants from other countries).
Examples for groundbreaking developments not done by the US: Theory of Evolution: Britain Steel (and Iron processing): Hittites Gunpowder: Byzantium Steam Locomotives: Scotland Flying Machines: Italy (Da Vinci), Germany (Otto Lilienthal) Rockets: China Jet-powered Aircraft: Germany and Britain First Computer Programmer: Britain (Ada Lovelace)
This of course says nothing about the quality of universities, but imho universities are only as good as the people that attend want it to be.
As a rule of thumb: You are usually forced to attend school at young age when you don't want to go there (because there are girls and girls are icky), so you don't learn as much unless the teachers care enough about their work to make school enjoyable for the pupils (most teachers don't). You are not forced to go to universities, so you are more willing to learn. If a university is very expensive, you will be more reluctant to waste it and spend more time learning, making it "a better university", just because the people that attend have more initiative to learn.
Also, 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot and 72% are based on misleading data.
I was a part of a very good secondary education system. It was in a well-funded community with teachers who cared.
The problem isn't that it doesn't exist, it's that it doesn't exist enough. The disparity between, say, an inner-city school in Detroit and mine is enormous. Funds are poorly distributed and poorly managed.
There are many top universaties in the USA but many of the students there arent Americans and the public school system is very bad. If you are rich and live in a rich area or a go to a good privat school its fine but for the vast majority it is pretty bad. Those top 20 lists of universities usually get their students from all over the world and especially the american ones have a extremely high quote of non-americans. Some barely have any americans at all.
I haven't read the entire thread, but the main reason for the disparity is money. The funding for the majority of American elementary-high schools is extremely low, especially compared to other countries who value their children's education higher. On the flipside, the funding for American universities is extremely high compared to other countries, the primary reason being NCAA sports. Frankly, college football and basketball are gigantic industries in America and they produce enough revenue to keep many American universities at the top. UCLA and Notre Dame are two names that come to mind that have benefitted the most from this.
Basically, it just comes down to capitalism. I suspect most other countries, especially ones like Finland/Sweden/Singapore, just say "Hey, let's give our kids the education they deserve" and put everything together like a neat package, spending whatever is necessary. Here, the government's attitude is more of a "What's in it for me?"
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.
On September 25 2011 01:35 luckybeni2 wrote: There are many top universaties in the USA but many of the students there arent Americans and the public school system is very bad. If you are rich and live in a rich area or a go to a good privat school its fine but for the vast majority it is pretty bad. Those top 20 lists of universities usually get their students from all over the world and especially the american ones have a extremely high quote of non-americans. Some barely have any americans at all.
Um I haven't heard of any universities in the U.S. where there are barely any Americans at all or even where non-americans are the majority (at least at the undergraduate level).
On September 25 2011 01:46 Cel.erity wrote: I haven't read the entire thread, but the main reason for the disparity is money. The funding for the majority of American elementary-high schools is extremely low, especially compared to other countries who value their children's education higher. On the flipside, the funding for American universities is extremely high compared to other countries, the primary reason being NCAA sports. Frankly, college football and basketball are gigantic industries in America and they produce enough revenue to keep many American universities at the top. UCLA and Notre Dame are two names that come to mind that have benefitted the most from this.
Basically, it just comes down to capitalism. I suspect most other countries, especially ones like Finland/Sweden/Singapore, just say "Hey, let's give our kids the education they deserve" and put everything together like a neat package, spending whatever is necessary. Here, the government's attitude is more of a "What's in it for me?"
You do know that it is rare where the Athletic department actually pays for itself for a university? Most have to cover the losses of their athletic programs.
Sir Ken Robinson is an expert in creativity, innovation, and human resources. He works with governments in Europe, Asia, and the United States, and with international agencies, Fortune 500 companies, and cultural organizations. Robinson led a national commission on creativity, education, and the economy for the UK government and was central in forming a creative- and economic-development strategy as part of the Northern Ireland peace process. Formerly, he was professor of education at the University of Warwick.
This animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's Benjamin Franklin award
I think you misinterpreted whoever told you that the American school system sucks. In reality, high school in America is terrible due to all the drugs and alcohol. However, American universities are amazing because those that go to university are there because they want a career , all kids are forced to attend school up to high school. Therefore, if they don't like school, they'll just do whatever they want until they get out of high school.
Most foreign students in America tend to do well because of a forced standard by their parents. In other words, they make their parents proud by doing well in school or their parents would be highly disappointed in them.
On a side note, the government and various other institutions help students pay for their education in America.
Why do you think that makes for a 'better' curriculum?
for a high school kid, i think there is more value in being able to apply those mathematical formulas correctly rather den being able to explain the process or what it means.
might be more 'functional' value as an office drone but that kind of automation hardly qualifies as knowledge.
although, push comes to shove, would a little more discipline in the u.s. school system help a segment of students? certainly.
The reason American public schools appear to suck is because of averages. When you compare within those averages you see that American schools are just as good as schools elsewhere in the advanced world. The difference is that America educates a number of African Americans, Hispanics, and other cultures of people at much higher rates than other countries.
When you compare European to European, Japanese to Japanese , Mexican to Mexican, etc American schooling is highly competitive with the rest of the world.
In my town, it's not that the schools are bad: it's just that the majority of the students are lazy ungrateful fuckers. I think it gets better as you move up the school hierarchy, because if you're going to a prestigious university, you're not going to school with dumb-asses. You're going to school with smart, motivated kids (hopefully).
However, I would not find it unbelievable that inner city schools and schools of that sort lack funding, and good educators. The problem with these schools is not the students, but the lack of resources available to the kids.
TL;DR American high schools are full of unmotivated little shits. Universities are not (most of the time, truer for better universities).
On September 25 2011 03:57 Saji wrote: Sir Ken Robinson is an expert in creativity, innovation, and human resources. He works with governments in Europe, Asia, and the United States, and with international agencies, Fortune 500 companies, and cultural organizations. Robinson led a national commission on creativity, education, and the economy for the UK government and was central in forming a creative- and economic-development strategy as part of the Northern Ireland peace process. Formerly, he was professor of education at the University of Warwick.
This animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's Benjamin Franklin award
Really nice speech, thanks for the link. I like how he explains it and it's a topic bugging me since quite some years, though i see it a little differently.
Schools focus too much on abstract things, memorizing stuff, etc., but they don't teach basic problem solving skills - maybe because problem solving skills can't be measured objectively and it's hard to put a grade on them. As a programmer i'm always angry when my peers can't solve simple problems and get stuck on things i need a few seconds to solve. They have far "better" education than me - i always had horrible grades at school - but they never learned how to think out of the box and solve problems from an angle they haven't learned before, eventhough that skill is the core of programming.
I'm just wondering if anybody here did poorly in high school (Grade wise) or talked to somebody who has?
Did any of your schools have those special classes where all the other failing students were essentially rounded up and baby sat for an hour? I was a really lazy student and they kept sticking me in honors classes because i did really well on tests and exams. At some point they just said "forget it" and I wound up in these really really really dumbed down classes. Some general health classes and some required courses that were taught at some near elementary level. One health class we sat around and talked for an hour or went to sleep and in physical science I got a B and I don't remember doing any homework and taking 2 or 3 quizzes which were really basic and the answers were practically given to us.
Looking back, it makes me so sick. All of the children there were so ignorant, they weren't lazy like me they just simply didn't try and didn't care to try. The teachers didn't push anybody to achieve either. It was like there was sort of secret agreement where everybody decided that not getting in trouble and having a worthless piece of paper in their hands was more important than actually learning something.
Those classes did help me in a way though, I got so tired of them that I transferred out to an alternative high school where I had to make up an extra year of High School.
There is definitely something wrong with High Schools in this country (Not all). It's hard to put my finger on any one thing. From my experience in my area, at some point some kids, parents, and faculty just stop caring. I never saw it in Elementary School and in Middle School there weren't very many who just didn't care but somewhere in the High School environment it happens. And these kids stay in the system, there's no way to change them unless they want to change. Good teachers are there but it's so hard to help a few students when you're in charge of one or two hundred. You can't force them out either unless they do something awful. So they contributed to this atmosphere of idiocy where you didn't brag about how good your grades are, rather how bad they were. You didn't brag about how you did something witty and smart, rather how you did something stupid and asinine.
On September 25 2011 03:57 Saji wrote: Sir Ken Robinson is an expert in creativity, innovation, and human resources. He works with governments in Europe, Asia, and the United States, and with international agencies, Fortune 500 companies, and cultural organizations. Robinson led a national commission on creativity, education, and the economy for the UK government and was central in forming a creative- and economic-development strategy as part of the Northern Ireland peace process. Formerly, he was professor of education at the University of Warwick.
This animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's Benjamin Franklin award
Really nice speech, thanks for the link. I like how he explains it and it's a topic bugging me since quite some years, though i see it a little differently.
Schools focus too much on abstract things, memorizing stuff, etc., but they don't teach basic problem solving skills - maybe because problem solving skills can't be measured objectively and it's hard to put a grade on them. As a programmer i'm always angry when my peers can't solve simple problems and get stuck on things i need a few seconds to solve. They have far "better" education than me - i always had horrible grades at school - but they never learned how to think out of the box and solve problems from an angle they haven't learned before, eventhough that skill is the core of programming.
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country.
no.
Add.: America is no country.
User was warned for this post
I was wanred, because I say the truth?
America is no country, this is a fact.
Also the statement "America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country." is not true. a) America is no country. b) Propably with "America" the US were ment. But nevertheless this statement is false, he didn't bring any arguments.
The hilarious irony of it is... what he said, even with the brainless logic that you brought with it, was that America (if not referring to the country would be referring to the two continents) had more scientific and academic discoveries than any country.... which is true, the combined scientific and academic discoveries of two whole continents BETTER be greater than any one country xDDDD
It depends on what you call scientific and academic discoveries, but america is only active in science since a little more than 500 years and most of it was spent with killing people (natives, each other, etc.)
Most of the real groundbreaking technologies come from europe and asia, only since about 200 years does the US even matter in science, and what exactly did they develop since then? It's all based on other work (and funnily enough often developed by immigrants from other countries).
Examples for groundbreaking developments not done by the US: Theory of Evolution: Britain Steel (and Iron processing): Hittites Gunpowder: Byzantium Steam Locomotives: Scotland Flying Machines: Italy (Da Vinci), Germany (Otto Lilienthal) Rockets: China Jet-powered Aircraft: Germany and Britain First Computer Programmer: Britain (Ada Lovelace)
This of course says nothing about the quality of universities, but imho universities are only as good as the people that attend want it to be.
As a rule of thumb: You are usually forced to attend school at young age when you don't want to go there (because there are girls and girls are icky), so you don't learn as much unless the teachers care enough about their work to make school enjoyable for the pupils (most teachers don't). You are not forced to go to universities, so you are more willing to learn. If a university is very expensive, you will be more reluctant to waste it and spend more time learning, making it "a better university", just because the people that attend have more initiative to learn.
Also, 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot and 72% are based on misleading data.
Is this a troll post? You say America has only been active in science for roughly 500 years. Guess what, the United States didn't exist a little more than 200 years ago.
I have no idea what the point of your post is when Columbus sailed to the Americas 500 years ago and the U.S. Constitution wasn't drafted till 1789
Not to get all Conspiracy Theory on you guys, but a lot of why our primary school system is defunct is that the US government wants to have a clear and precise means of determining who's going to be working class and who isn't.
By being lax in terms of enforcement and discipline, the students who want to learn will put in the work to compete and move on, the rest will become blue collar drug addicted baby factories, creating more impoverished generations of people with sub-100 IQs to serve as wage slaves for the capitalist regime.
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)
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.
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 05:04 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 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 05:04 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.
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...
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 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 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 07:24 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.
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 07:35 Millitron wrote: 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.
This is a very big problem actually. I teach 11th and 12th graders. Some of them could pass my course after sleeping most of the year. Some of them can't do basic algebra. Some of them study 50 hours for the state final. Others don't study at all and then put their head down during the final. This varies from class to class. Last year I had the 'fast track' AP class so my AP kids did way better on the AP exam then the other teacher's class. This doesn't mean I did a better job teaching.
This is an extremely difficult (more like impossible) system to make even remotely fair. Let's not forget that teachers have no control who is put into their classes. If I piss off guidance or an AP or something they will make sure all the problem kids end up in my class. Of course no system is perfect but the one you are pushing for would be so far from perfect it would be more counterproductive than whatever problems you believe exist with the current system.
The day merit pay and job security is so strictly tied to student performance is the day I find another career. And I'm one of those teachers who is working really hard, isn't burned out, and considered to be effective right now by my employers.
I'm far from alone among the 'not bad' teachers... can't speak for the terrible ones.
On September 25 2011 07:54 BlackJack wrote: Do you know any bad teachers, micronesia?
Mostly through stories... I only ever had one that was that bad and it was because the district pissed him off and he retired halfway through the school year (lol, better off with a leave replacement I think).
The teachers who I work with closely aren't bad but I don't see other teachers for the most part since I don't go into their classroom. Around here (where I live/work) there are far less bad teachers than in places where teacher pay/conditions are worse. I'm sure I could find plenty in bad neighborhoods in nearby cities, for example.
Many of international ranking of universities are based mostly on the research output of the university. It says nothing or little about the standard of undergraduate education at these institutions.
American university attract the most talented people from all of the world. In any top school majority of the PhDs students come from outside US. At my school in my program there are usually 2-3 American students out of 20 each year.
Short answer: Money => hiring best researchers + best facilities => best quality research in high volume => ranked high in the international rankings.
I bet if you considered achievements of the undergraduate students the difference between US and world would be much smaller.
On September 25 2011 07:54 BlackJack wrote: Do you know any bad teachers, micronesia?
Mostly through stories... I only ever had one that was that bad and it was because the district pissed him off and he retired halfway through the school year (lol, better off with a leave replacement I think).
The teachers who I work with closely aren't bad but I don't see other teachers for the most part since I don't go into their classroom. Around here (where I live/work) there are far less bad teachers than in places where teacher pay/conditions are worse. I'm sure I could find plenty in bad neighborhoods in nearby cities, for example.
I think I may have had bad luck; for a good part of my schooling, I had mostly meh teachers, with a few awful ones. I only had 4 or so that I thought were really good. This probably is affecting my judgement a little, since I was personally affected by it.
As you said in your other post though, plenty of students just don't care at all. This, I think, is because of No Child Left Behind. The students don't have any responsibility, they just coast through. The students themselves need to be held responsible for how hard they try, and if they don't, maybe they should be left behind.
Not everyone has time to care about a test or studying when they work all the time. Not talking about college talking kids i knew in high school. People who dropped out even to go to a trades school once they had the money to. Not everyone has a nice cushy life where the only thing they have to worry about is school and social pressures.
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.
The teachers at my high school (public, just outside of Detroit) were a range, some really good to some meh to some crazy. One example was in a literature class where the teacher failed to get the class to read a book (Fahrenheit 251) and she eventually bowed to their bitching and just showed the movie (I think I was the only one in the class to actually read all the required books). It was sad. And junior year we had this 3 day test in Michigan that was to test to see how students were doing (this was pre NCLB so teachers weren't really teaching to the test) but it did impact funding so the school was desperate to get everyone to take it because if they didn't they got an auto 0 and the school average went down. Several students in the room I was in taking the test didn't take it at all and could care less that it was fucking over their school (main incentive for kids was that they got like 1.5k a year towards their college tuition from the state for free if they did well). Still some will just say "nothing in it for me since im not going to college" and just basically say screw you to the school. Sad I think that motivation is one of the bigger problems but that motivation can be sapped in a kid by so many different kinds of factors that its a hard problem to deal with imo.
The top universities can basically take their pick from the top students of public and private high schools in the nation (and outside the nation). And not all public schools are horrible. That's my explanation of this paradox.
Considering public schools, I think there needs to more privatization and competition, if you want to improve the situation. I don't believe that public schools are "underfunded" and that the system can be made better just by throwing more money at the schools. The system is fundamentally flawed right now and inefficient. As stated before, there's no incentive for students to work hard. They are allowed to just "coast". Same is true for teachers.
The quality of your high school depends on what town you live in America. My town has high property taxes, because it is next to the water, but most of that money goes to improving our school. Our school is considered the best school in the state, because of all the money my town puts in. But, 15 miles down the road, in a neighboring town, the school is terrible. This mostly has to do with incomes of the two towns (there's a lot of millionaires in my town).
The way anything gets good whether it be Universities, teams, businesses ect. is their selecting. The American universities have enough prestige to be able to only take the best.
On September 25 2011 08:53 Loanshark wrote: The top universities can basically take their pick from the top students of public and private high schools in the nation (and outside the nation). And not all public schools are horrible. That's my explanation of this paradox.
Considering public schools, I think there needs to more privatization and competition, if you want to improve the situation. I don't believe that public schools are "underfunded" and that the system can be made better just by throwing more money at the schools. The system is fundamentally flawed right now and inefficient. As stated before, there's no incentive for students to work hard. They are allowed to just "coast". Same is true for teachers.
Pre-university schooling in the USA isn't bad when compared with many other countries - that's not to say it can't be improved. It's just that Americans complain loudly.
If you hear Americans talking about how shitty their schools are, it just means that their schools used to be better than they are now, and the standards haven't dropped from what they used to expect from their education system. It doesn't mean that their schools are actually shitty compared to the rest of the world. It just means that their schools are shitty compared to what they used to be. It's like rich people complaining because they have only half a billion dollars instead of the whole billion they used to have. They can still buy anything they could ever want, but they are just dissatisfied because they know they could have more like they used to. Does that make sense?
A friend of mine is doing a year of post graduate college in Paris, she told me the first time she got into the library, the person in charge there wouldn't let her get in without authorization of her advisor -- no matter that she was a registered student there already -- later after having gone throughout all the trouble of getting a signature from her professor, she still couldn't get and access the library because she needed to pass through a couple of interviews.
Shit like that would never happen in USA, no matter the color of your skin, age, religion or even whether you are a registered student or not.. just saying that might be one the reasons universities in USA get the best students around the world too.
On September 25 2011 09:11 MichaelDonovan wrote: If you hear Americans talking about how shitty their schools are, it just means that their schools used to be better than they are now, and the standards haven't dropped from what they used to expect from their education system. It doesn't mean that their schools are actually shitty compared to the rest of the world. It just means that their schools are shitty compared to what they used to be. It's like rich people complaining because they have only half a billion dollars instead of the whole billion they used to have. They can still buy anything they could ever want, but they are just dissatisfied because they know they could have more like they used to. Does that make sense?
What are you basing this on?
Also, the very idea that if U.S. schools haven't improved upon where they were 30 years ago (or however long ago they may have been better than they are now) that means they ARE worse in comparison to everyone else now, because over the past 30 years development has increased and schools worldwide should be better.
It's ongoing improvement and the U.S. public school system keeps slipping in comparison to other countries.
Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
I can only comment on the public schools in Texas but I think the reason why public schools are considered so bad is because the only performance review for teachers is the grades their students make on standardized tests. In Texas it is the TAKS test, and this test is a fucking joke. We would spend part of the year kind of learning the stuff that would be on the test and the other part of the year would be spent on test taking skills specifically for the TAKS. The whole school year would be taught around a shitty test that is no challenging in the slightest.
tldr: too much time is spent teaching how to take a test and not enough time spent actually learning math/science/english/ ect.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents.
Indeed. We don't respect education in this country. Intellectualism is made fun of, while playing football and cheerleading is 'cool'. Guess what happens to most students when studying makes you a social outcast.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
In the defense of administrators, I would like to point out that parents are increasingly bringing lawyers to deal with them. Teachers may be castrated by administrators, but administrators are handicapped by the parents who could easily cost them their jobs.
The real problem is that parents don't treat educational professionals, whether teachers or administrators, as... well, professionals. If parents started listening to teachers and administrators regarding their children's education the way that most people listen to their doctors and lawyers regarding medicine and law, then you would see a big shift.
As it is, parents frequently think they know better than teachers. This makes it realistic grading impossible (because a teacher who gives easy As never recieves complaints, but a harsh grader quickly gets reprimanded), encourages social promotion (schools rarely hold back even complete morons because it's not worth dealing with the backlash/lawsuit), and discourages disciplining students.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
More than that, they suck up tons of resources that could be better spent. At least send those kids to vocational schools, the military, or the workforce, rather than having them attend a glorified government-funded daycare system.
Even a "public"university requires you to pay tuition, you don't have to pay tuition at a public school. So you actually have incentive to do well so you don't waste your money. Also you aren't required to go to school past 16.....I think, so those who don't want to be in school don't go to a university, but when they are required to go they don't do.well which pulls down the grades. Add to that the fact that schools are paid for with local taxes so the richer the area the.better the school usually is.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents.
Indeed. We don't respect education in this country. Intellectualism is made fun of, while playing football and cheerleading is 'cool'. Guess what happens to most students when studying makes you a social outcast.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
In the defense of administrators, I would like to point out that parents are increasingly bringing lawyers to deal with them. Teachers may be castrated by administrators, but administrators are handicapped by the parents who could easily cost them their jobs.
The real problem is that parents don't treat educational professionals, whether teachers or administrators, as... well, professionals. If parents started listening to teachers and administrators regarding their children's education the way that most people listen to their doctors and lawyers regarding medicine and law, then you would see a big shift.
As it is, parents frequently think they know better than teachers. This makes it realistic grading impossible (because a teacher who gives easy As never recieves complaints, but a harsh grader quickly gets reprimanded), encourages social promotion (schools rarely hold back even complete morons because it's not worth dealing with the backlash/lawsuit), and discourages disciplining students.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
More than that, they suck up tons of resources that could be better spent. At least send those kids to vocational schools, the military, or the workforce, rather than having them attend a glorified government-funded daycare system.
There's nothing wrong with football and cheer leading being cool. Its the fact that being a complete dumb ass isnt discouraged enough. Its like its cool to not know. Similar to that Chris Rock act. Its not even that intellectualism is frowned upon, generally the people who simply "study" are socially awkward anyway. Standards just need to be raised. Low expectations do nothing but hurt students.
A lot of reasons have been put forth for why American schools are falling down the rankings like bad eachers, corrupt administrators, tv, video games, rock music, pollution, vaccines and the devil. Elephant in the room: It's the kids. When I was in school all I saw were laziness, apathy, ingratitude, delinquency and pretentiousness (not that I am any exception). Kids in America are more concerned with being cool and fitting in than studying. All the money and best teachers in the world won't do a thing for a kid who doesn't want to learn.
As for why American Universities are ranked so highly, just look up brain drain and you'll get your answer. Once you're on top it isn't difficult to stay there when so many of the world's brightest devote the first couple decades of their lives to an acceptance letter from your campus.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is. There is no evidence that the "kids" are at fault in the education system. However, we see the curriculum getting altered to teach less and education system workers having bloated salaries and/or positions that are way too secure.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is.
don't bother replying
You expect people to take you seriously when you make your point and then say "don't bother replying"?
I don't think Sadist's point was that your class was obviously full of dummies... just that this is all case-by-case and just as you accuse his assumptions of being an outlier so too can be your example.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is. There is no evidence that the "kids" are at fault in the education system. However, we see the curriculum getting altered to teach less and education system workers having bloated salaries and/or positions that are way too secure.
don't bother replying
Do you know why they teach less? Because of a lack of job security because of standardized testing. They teach less to try to keep test scores high because the only thing that matters are these ridiculous standardized tests. Lol@ bloated salaries. Do you have any idea what teachers actually make? Especially pre-masters degree?
Who cares if your university attendance is 80% at your highschool. People actually IN college have 68% averages regularly especially if you are in a math/science department.
On September 25 2011 12:04 Sadist wrote: Its not even that intellectualism is frowned upon, generally the people who simply "study" are socially awkward anyway.
You're not seeing the connection.
When it's cool to not study, people who are socially adept will follow along and not study (or at the very least, pretend not to). Instead, they will favor things that are cool, and for American kids, this means things like sports for boys and looking pretty for girls (to use some stereotypical examples). This means that people who study will tend to be socially awkward, since it is these socially inept kids who missed the social cues directing the other kids to not study.
When you have an environment where it's cool to go to a top-tier university (private schools, Asian-dominated schools, etc.), the situation is actually reversed, and the top performers tend to be socially adept.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is. There is no evidence that the "kids" are at fault in the education system. However, we see the curriculum getting altered to teach less and education system workers having bloated salaries and/or positions that are way too secure.
don't bother replying
Do you know why they teach less? Because of a lack of job security because of standardized testing. They teach less to try to keep test scores high because the only thing that matters are these ridiculous standardized tests. Lol@ bloated salaries. Do you have any idea what teachers actually make? Especially pre-masters degree?
Who cares if your university attendance is 80% at your highschool. People actually IN college have 68% averages regularly especially if you are in a math/science department.
Ok, first of all, I said the curriculum teaches less. Not the teachers. That doesn't even make sense. Of course you are going to keep saying that teachers make no money and lack job security. This contradicts everything you said.
On September 25 2011 12:04 Sadist wrote: Its not even that intellectualism is frowned upon, generally the people who simply "study" are socially awkward anyway.
You're not seeing the connection.
When it's cool to not study, people who are socially adept will follow along and not study (or at the very least, pretend not to). Instead, they will favor things that are cool, and for American kids, this means things like sports for boys and looking pretty for girls (to use some stereotypical examples). This means that people who study will tend to be socially awkward, since it is these socially inept kids whol missed the social cues directing the other kids to not study.
When you have an environment where it's cool to go to a top-tier university (private schools, Asian-dominated schools, etc.), you actually see a flip, where the top performers tend to instead be socially adept.
Agree. I think it goes both ways though, it's like the chicken or the egg.
There is no paradox because the American school system does not suck.
People here are worried and complaining about it because it is on a downward trend and has been for several decades now but it is still among the best in the world.
And I would only compare it to Europeans anyways. Lots of people like to bring up China, Japan and Korea but I think that is rubbish, they have a different culture that works for them and would not work in the west. Though I would say that their emphasis on math and science is something we should try to acquire.
Unfortunately it is "cool" to chase around a leather ball like an idiot and it is "uncool" to be good at math...so the downward trend will continue and soon we will suck.
~edit~
and the universities will follow behind the grade school system but with a lag. As the school system falls, the quality of potential college students will fall and they will recruit mainly students from overseas, or unless the government prevents that they will just move over seas. In either case there will still be no paradox because the Universities will go where the talent is, but there would be some lag rather than instantaneous change.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is. There is no evidence that the "kids" are at fault in the education system. However, we see the curriculum getting altered to teach less and education system workers having bloated salaries and/or positions that are way too secure.
don't bother replying
Do you know why they teach less? Because of a lack of job security because of standardized testing. They teach less to try to keep test scores high because the only thing that matters are these ridiculous standardized tests. Lol@ bloated salaries. Do you have any idea what teachers actually make? Especially pre-masters degree?
Who cares if your university attendance is 80% at your highschool. People actually IN college have 68% averages regularly especially if you are in a math/science department.
Ok, first of all, I said the curriculum teaches less. Not the teachers. That doesn't even make sense. Of course you are going to keep saying that teachers make no money and lack job security. This contradicts everything you said.
You do realize that college is privatized right? You can't compare college to public high schools because that's exactly what OP is talking about.
I'm done with you. You are going off on a libertarian tangent. Do you want to know why teachers don't want merit pay? Because there isn't a good measuring stick for judging how well a teacher does. You generally just know it when you see it. I have no sympathy with administration. I don't know where you get that from. I think they need to grow some balls and stand up to parents.
You still don't get that maybe your class deserved 68's. If a teacher tries to make you work for it suddenly they suck and its their fault. I wish more high school teachers did that when I was in HS. There is a rude awakening in store for people who only care about grades and not what they are actually learning when they get to college.
Also that top article references salaries of like 80k in NYC? Of course they make more in NYC the cost of living is ridiculous. Here in Michigan you'd be lucky to make 35k+ coming out of college to be a teacher. You won't go near 50k without a masters degree.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is. There is no evidence that the "kids" are at fault in the education system. However, we see the curriculum getting altered to teach less and education system workers having bloated salaries and/or positions that are way too secure.
don't bother replying
Do you know why they teach less? Because of a lack of job security because of standardized testing. They teach less to try to keep test scores high because the only thing that matters are these ridiculous standardized tests. Lol@ bloated salaries. Do you have any idea what teachers actually make? Especially pre-masters degree?
Who cares if your university attendance is 80% at your highschool. People actually IN college have 68% averages regularly especially if you are in a math/science department.
Ok, first of all, I said the curriculum teaches less. Not the teachers. That doesn't even make sense. Of course you are going to keep saying that teachers make no money and lack job security. This contradicts everything you said.
You do realize that college is privatized right? You can't compare college to public high schools because that's exactly what OP is talking about.
I'm done with you. You are going off on a libertarian tangent. Do you want to know why teachers don't want merit pay? Because there isn't a good measuring stick for judging how well a teacher does. You generally just know it when you see it. I have no sympathy with administration. I don't know where you get that from. I think they need to grow some balls and stand up to parents.
You still don't get that maybe your class deserved 68's. If a teacher tries to make you work for it suddenly they suck and its their fault. I wish more high school teachers did that when I was in HS. There is a rude awakening in store for people who only care about grades and not what they are actually learning when they get to college.
Try to find what part of the pyramid your reply falls into.
I kinda get the feeling that the op was insinuating that the rankings are distorted and that American universities are put on top because the US is influencing the ratings (hell most of them are done by US companies/organizations). That said, top universities accept applicants from all over the world. What child dreams of going to "University of X Country" when they could go to Harvard or Yale etc?
People go to universities to get more opportunities (building connections, alumni networks, prestige from degrees) not just because they like studying. And guess where most of the opportunities were to become super rich/successful etc? You guessed it, the US (at least up until recently, things may be changing). Also, people need to remember that most programs/schools aren't rated on how well the students perform on standardized tests, but rather the research/publications that the programs produce, notable scholars/artists, and the success of its students in finding jobs afterwards.
Finally, the top universities have extremely stringent requirements to get in. Unless your education system is completely garbage to the point where people come out of it illiterate, you're going to be able to find a few gems from the thousands of applicants. And if you can't, well you can always look overseas.
On September 25 2011 01:12 BushidoSnipr wrote: There are tons of public universities, but the majority of them are insanely fucking hard to get into.
They almost literally force you to have some sort tragic past or life changing experience. They base their admission mainly on the entrance essay(s) and they only accept kids who are "special"
And plus it costs 20 years of post college debt anyway.
IMO The universities are good, but theres a shitton of tradeoffs
dude, really? You sound a bit bitter.
I went to the University of Washington for 4k a year (in-state for me). My parents are still together, are upper middle class, and when I attended I hadn't personally known a single person who died or had cancer. Additionally, I wasn't involved in Student Governement, or clubs, or shit like that.
IMO this post perfectly shows the problem with America, no one will take responsibility for something if they can blame an external force.
On September 25 2011 10:13 Sadist wrote: Is a culture problem more than anything. Students don't care/aren't held accountable by their parents. If they fuck up its of course the teachers fault. Administrators are the biggest pussies nowadays, one parent complains and they flip their shit. Meanwhile the teachers have been basically castrated by administrators in dealing with parents.
Basically, we are fucked culturally. People who have said they have had "meh" teachers, think about those teachers compared to college professors. 100% im sure they are better at teaching than almost all Professors you have had. The kids and their parents need to be held more responsible, less onus needs to put on the teachers unless there is some egregious shit going on.
Also people who don't wanna be in school need to be kicked the fuck out. They ruin it for everyone else and are a big drag on morale.
Replies these are completely typical. So pro-establishment it is disgusting. Do some research on teacher unions and then say teachers are always the victims. Once you've got the job, thanks to the mafia-like organization backing you up, it's almost impossible to get fired, especially if you're a minority. I had an Aboriginal math functions teacher a few years back and her class average was 68. Not only that, she threw a stapler at a student. Did she get fired? Of course not.
So next time, don't make broad assumptions.
Maybe the class deserved 68's? It would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. A 68 average is pretty typical in college. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn your shit and use the resources you have.
Teacher's arent always the victims. But I can see how being a teacher gets tiring after a while of putting up with the bullshit of parents/administrators. Not to mention every year the students seem to come in knowing less and being more disillusioned with the school system.
Throwing a stapler at a student. TBH who cares. Was the student cut and bleeding? Stitches? They probably deserved it anyway.
This was the only class of that grade to have such low grades. At this school, university attendance after high school graduation exceeds 80%. Your assumptions are fine and dandy, until it's evident that it is an outlier and we can really see where the fault is.
don't bother replying
You expect people to take you seriously when you make your point and then say "don't bother replying"?
I don't think Sadist's point was that your class was obviously full of dummies... just that this is all case-by-case and just as you accuse his assumptions of being an outlier so too can be your example.
Don't reply because he's busy playing card games, like he knows what school is about hell he probably dropped out to go to all those tournaments i swear there is no way they could do all that and attend school.
You can only blame a teacher for so much, the idea of blaming teach unions is quite odd in my point of view. People confused what a teach union is, they can fire you if you're a shit poor teacher being part of a union means that there has to be a legit reason and process for firing a teacher, ie a benefit of a union. This is probably a hindrance on the firers side, but it's a great stride for workers rights, to say teachers who are in the process of getting fired still get payed and crap well, would you like to be held up for weeks on end without a job being told we are reviewing your case blah blah blah, perhaps if it was funded better they could afford speedier bureaucracy. But guess what i would be on the bottom of my to do list if i was trying to keep schools running, processing teachers to get fired, maybe get them out of the classroom asap but fuck paper work.
America has a lot of students from poor backgrounds, who are first generation immigrants who barely speak English, or come from violent inner-city neighborhoods. The top students from America are equivalent to the top students from Europe though. (although neither study as hard as Korean/Chinese top students, which will become a problem soon)
I'd always thought that rankings were mainly dependent on academic peer reviews, recruiter reviews (perception of the institution the graduate came from), and citations per faculty, while academic results weren't as relevant.
US universities are where they are because of the global brain drain. The branding they have built up over the years have stayed solid, not to mention that they were so much more capable of attracting the best around the world as compared to the universities situated in Asia. And as many here has mentioned before, money plays a big role in entry.
I don't think that Asian universities are producing less competent graduates. The strength of the American brand though, is worth its weight in gold. Maybe universities in the States will get dislodged over time as Asian economies grow, who knows.
It just so happens that after WWII the US was almost completely unscathed(in terms of actual country as there was no fighting on the US mainland thus no damage to the industrial sector(which received heavy government contracts from WWII), no damage to universities, and many top researchers moved to the US. The Cold War then occurred creating a large increase in DoD spending. These 3 effects then combined: bustling industrial sector with lots of money, large DoD research grants, worlds top researchers. These combined to accelerate already decent US universities to being among the best in the world for research. As if this wasn't already enough Silicon Valley started taking shape a decade after WWII. This then created an OBSCENE increase in industrial research funding for the SoCal universities. Recently this has been followed by the creation of Materials Science departments(lets say the last 20 years) and they have started becoming the forefront of scientific advancement(research wise) and this has been exploding in the US. The funding pored into materials science departments is generally more then ANY other department at a university(not counting sports). So we are now left with US universities being the most funded in the world. This now leads to university rankings.
Being a top university is quite misleading and many don't understand what it really means. Essentially its very expensive/almost impossible to accurately measure universities by what really matters(quality of courses taught, how students did after graduating, etc). Due to the complexities involved in ranking by the above most ranking is heavily influenced by 3 things: reputation of faculty(generally the # of papers they put out), the schools brand(think MIT), AND the grant/research money(this is done through the industrial sector mostly as well as government research funds like NSF and NIH) the school receives. Many universities in the US have an established reputation(namely from advancements that occurred in the last 100 years or less), pay the highest so top faculty(generally measured by putting out the most papers which is important in rankings) are inclined to move the US to make money, and are extremely well funded. This then puts US universities at the top of the scale as they have the money, which is assumed to translate to the best education(sadly this doesn't go hand in hand as seen from the US public school system and IMO education at most US universities is highly overrated).
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.
Most academics would rightfully consider Harvard to be the best university in the world. Look at the normalized subscores for Harvard here. You can argue what the second best university is, but #1 is not really debatable.
On September 24 2011 23:58 Amber[LighT] wrote: Do some research before you make posts.
It's a stupid term; the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings (which take into account things like research output, faculty awards, and so on) have Vermont outside the top 200 schools in the world. It is not one of the top 50 schools in the US by any reasonable metric.
On September 25 2011 01:46 Cel.erity wrote: I haven't read the entire thread, but the main reason for the disparity is money. The funding for the majority of American elementary-high schools is extremely low, especially compared to other countries who value their children's education higher. On the flipside, the funding for American universities is extremely high compared to other countries, the primary reason being NCAA sports. Frankly, college football and basketball are gigantic industries in America and they produce enough revenue to keep many American universities at the top. UCLA and Notre Dame are two names that come to mind that have benefitted the most from this.
NCAA sports are not the primary reason; the richest schools in the US are mostly private schools which draw in a negligible amount of revenue from their athletic programs.
Generally the public school stigma gets attached to the American education system as a whole. True, we do have top universities in the world. True also, that our universities accept applicants from abroad, and from successful students not in the same state/community. The end result is our highest level educators really get besmirched by the attacks leveled against our public school system.
Abysmal test scores, inability to compete against foreign students on grade school testing, low graduation rates from high school: these are the problems rampant within the system. There has been some talk about affirmative action in universities, but not much (What use is it belonging to a particular race and meeting an admittance quota to a top university if your strengths and diligence are better served spending first 2 years in community college and transferring instead of receiving poor grades in a school too tough for your current skills). Don't want to get too far off topic with that thought, though.
How is it possible for America to, allegedly, have such horribly bad and ineffective schools, while having the best universities in the world?
Getting back to this, the public schools in America are more under pressure from aggressive teacher's unions and low ability for school choice. Starting with the second thought first, your choice in public school is generally confined geographically i.e. if you live in one area you gotta go to a certain public school. You can't pick another if the teaching staff at that school don't have teaching degrees (or science/humanities degrees) and have poor track records of student performance. Measures to promote student choice (voucher programs are one) are very much opposed by teachers union lobbies. If schools don't have to compete for their students, there's very little incentive for them to work on having a trained staff that is good at teaching them.
Culturally, there's less of a pressure or desire to be a straight-A student and graduate from high school. There exists a coolness factor for being that 'bad boy' and ditching class / dropping out. Fades quickly, though.
On September 25 2011 13:20 Silver777 wrote: As if this wasn't already enough Silicon Valley started taking shape a decade after WWII. This then created an OBSCENE increase in industrial research funding for the SoCal universities. Recently this has been followed by the creation of Materials Science departments(lets say the last 20 years) and they have started becoming the forefront of scientific advancement(research wise) and this has been exploding in the US. The funding pored into materials science departments is generally more then ANY other department at a university(not counting sports). So we are now left with US universities being the most funded in the world. This now leads to university rankings.
Rofl, wtf? How in the world did you make such a direct jump from computer science to materials science, and why is materials science "the" forefront of all scientific advancement and research funding?
If anyone actually reads what you wrote, I'm not sure how they can treat you as credible >.>
On September 25 2011 13:20 Silver777 wrote: As if this wasn't already enough Silicon Valley started taking shape a decade after WWII. This then created an OBSCENE increase in industrial research funding for the SoCal universities. Recently this has been followed by the creation of Materials Science departments(lets say the last 20 years) and they have started becoming the forefront of scientific advancement(research wise) and this has been exploding in the US. The funding pored into materials science departments is generally more then ANY other department at a university(not counting sports). So we are now left with US universities being the most funded in the world. This now leads to university rankings.
Rofl, wtf? How in the world did you make such a direct jump from computer science to materials science, and why is materials science "the" forefront of all scientific advancement and research funding?
If anyone actually reads what you wrote, I'm not sure how they can treat you as credible >.>
Keyword you didn't quote "becoming" (though it probably is already). I also said nothing about computer science as Silicon Valley funding doesn't mean computer science in the least.
Rankings is primarily about funding. Silicon Valley(located by SoCal in the US) = a lot of US industrial funding(was a ton and is still a ton). Materials Science Departments are new and are among the most funded departments in universities, if not the highest.
To add to this, countries like Singapore, China, Korea, and most Asian countries, are generally consider to have the best schools in the world, with the highest level of school achievements measured by standardized language, math, and science scores
Canada is ranked either 1, 2, or 3 in all of these categories, as well as humanities (social studies). But yeah, American universities are superior just because the rich minority can create these schools imo, while the rest of the school system suffers.
sure american universities are top schools in the world. but look at their students, a very small fraction of them are actually American born. the reason they are ranked is because of their foreign born brains and their insane amount of research funding.
On September 25 2011 13:46 Silver777 wrote: Keyword you didn't quote "becoming" (though it probably is already). I also said nothing about computer science as Silicon Valley funding doesn't mean computer science in the least.
Rankings is primarily about funding. Silicon Valley(located by SoCal in the US) = a lot of US industrial funding(was a ton and is still a ton). Materials Science Departments are new and are among the most funded departments in universities, if not the highest.
Your post assigns a level of importance to materials science that no one except a materials scientist (which you apparently are given your post history) would assign. It's not even notable in this instance (for example, funding to biomedical areas is far more significant). Per faculty member funding for materials science is fairly high; in absolute terms it's dwarfed (due to group size) by biology and other fields.
On September 25 2011 14:01 Kizu wrote: sure american universities are top schools in the world. but look at their students, a very small fraction of them are actually American born. the reason they are ranked is because of their foreign born brains and their insane amount of research funding.
Where are people getting this crap from?
Show me a source where top American universities are even close to a majority of international students.
Preferably divided between undergraduate and graduate students.
On September 25 2011 14:01 Kizu wrote: sure american universities are top schools in the world. but look at their students, a very small fraction of them are actually American born. the reason they are ranked is because of their foreign born brains and their insane amount of research funding.
No, it's the fruits of their research and quality of their facilities along with published articles that raise prestige. There's a reason people from foreign countries go to American Universities so you only strengthen the point that they're the best. Quality of teaching for example isnt as highly valued by people doing rankings as things that raise prestige in the academic community like research.
On September 25 2011 13:46 Silver777 wrote: Keyword you didn't quote "becoming" (though it probably is already). I also said nothing about computer science as Silicon Valley funding doesn't mean computer science in the least.
Rankings is primarily about funding. Silicon Valley(located by SoCal in the US) = a lot of US industrial funding(was a ton and is still a ton). Materials Science Departments are new and are among the most funded departments in universities, if not the highest.
Your post assigns a level of importance to materials science that no one except a materials scientist (which you apparently are given your post history) would assign. It's not even notable in this instance (for example, funding to biomedical areas is far more significant). Per faculty member funding for materials science is fairly high; in absolute terms it's dwarfed (due to group size) by biology and other fields.
I would agree that I said nothing about biomedical and that sector is gigantic in research. Most people(IMO) generally think of "University" as chemistry, physics, nuclear, computer science, etc and this leads to Law, Medical, and "University" being thought of separately. Each has a different situation, funding, tuition, research, etc and each is seen as the best in America for education purposes. From this standpoint materials science would be considered quite significant.
Of course none of it matters as I don't have exact numbers and more importantly my overall viewpoint is that US universities are simply more funded then other universities and funding heavily influences rankings and peoples conceptions of a school.
On September 25 2011 14:01 Kizu wrote: sure american universities are top schools in the world. but look at their students, a very small fraction of them are actually American born. the reason they are ranked is because of their foreign born brains and their insane amount of research funding.
Where are people getting this crap from?
Show me a source where top American universities are even close to a majority of international students.
Preferably divided between undergraduate and graduate students.
cant speak for any american universities, but as a 4th year undergrad mechanical engineer at the university of toronto, i can honestly say that here white people are definitely a minority, perhaps being 5%~. the majority of students are definitely coming from asia - chinese, korean, indian, thailand, iran, ukraine, etc. and only around 40% of the professors are white
On September 25 2011 13:20 Silver777 wrote: As if this wasn't already enough Silicon Valley started taking shape a decade after WWII. This then created an OBSCENE increase in industrial research funding for the SoCal universities. Recently this has been followed by the creation of Materials Science departments(lets say the last 20 years) and they have started becoming the forefront of scientific advancement(research wise) and this has been exploding in the US. The funding pored into materials science departments is generally more then ANY other department at a university(not counting sports). So we are now left with US universities being the most funded in the world. This now leads to university rankings.
Rofl, wtf? How in the world did you make such a direct jump from computer science to materials science, and why is materials science "the" forefront of all scientific advancement and research funding?
If anyone actually reads what you wrote, I'm not sure how they can treat you as credible >.>
Keyword you didn't quote "becoming" (though it probably is already). I also said nothing about computer science as Silicon Valley funding doesn't mean computer science in the least.
Rankings is primarily about funding. Silicon Valley(located by SoCal in the US) = a lot of US industrial funding(was a ton and is still a ton). Materials Science Departments are new and are among the most funded departments in universities, if not the highest.
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.
Most academics would rightfully consider Harvard to be the best university in the world. Look at the normalized subscores for Harvard here. You can argue what the second best university is, but #1 is not really debatable.
It's a stupid term; the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings (which take into account things like research output, faculty awards, and so on) have Vermont outside the top 200 schools in the world. It is not one of the top 50 schools in the US by any reasonable metric.
On September 25 2011 01:46 Cel.erity wrote: I haven't read the entire thread, but the main reason for the disparity is money. The funding for the majority of American elementary-high schools is extremely low, especially compared to other countries who value their children's education higher. On the flipside, the funding for American universities is extremely high compared to other countries, the primary reason being NCAA sports. Frankly, college football and basketball are gigantic industries in America and they produce enough revenue to keep many American universities at the top. UCLA and Notre Dame are two names that come to mind that have benefitted the most from this.
NCAA sports are not the primary reason; the richest schools in the US are mostly private schools which draw in a negligible amount of revenue from their athletic programs.
The Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings place UC Berkeley within the top 5 consistently.
It's considered to be a "public ivy".
Yes the term is stupid, and no, no public university in the US comes close to rivaling the best private schools in student quality, but it does convey something somewhat meaningful.
Uhhh I would argue that Berkeley definitely DOES rival private schools in terms of student quality.
I would say that Penn State, UofM-Ann Arbor and a few other public schools in the U.S. do very well in terms of their student bodies (particularly in a few fields, depending on the school)
So yeah, I'd have to disagree quite strongly with the notion that student bodies of top public schools in the U.S. can't rival the top private ones
On September 24 2011 01:48 giuocob wrote: Universities are private. America has been the site of many, many scientific and academic discoveries in its history, far more than any other country. These people drive universities and make them exceptional.
Most high schools and below are public. It is well known that most anything the American government touches turns to shit, and public schooling is no exception.
Well the US does have public universities, of which some are very highly ranked, like UCLA. The best university in Australia, ANU is also public.
Although "public" is a bit of a misnomer since the operation of the university isn't decided by government, but it's still funded by government.
However, if the school system is so bad, surely that would have an effect on the level of education of the students at start of university, and it seems this should have a flow on effect. I'm not convinced this can explain bad universities in Asian countries with good schools.
Not all public schools are poor.... It's usually only the public schools in the big cities (which are also mirrored by fantastic private schools--although fewer in number). The public schools out in suburbs are usually much better and can sometimes even reach the quality of a private school. It really depends how much the local city is willing to pump into their school system.
I think it's a generalization to say that all public schools are bad... my graduating class put out something near 80% college freshman, which is really high for a public school.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between some crappy state school and flagship state schools or private research institutions.
On September 25 2011 15:50 chenchen wrote:The Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings place UC Berkeley within the top 5 consistently.
It's considered to be a "public ivy".
What's your point? Berkeley is one of the best research institutions in the US, private or otherwise, and the metrics bear that out. Public schools like Wisconsin, Washington, several of the UC campuses, and Michigan also score very well according to the metrics. Berkeley, despite offering excellent academics (superior at the graduate level to most of the Ivy League schools, in fact), also offers a very different undergraduate experience (which can safely be characterized as 'worse' in most ways) than that found at the real Ivy Leagues chools.
Schools like Vermont and Miami-Ohio are not comparable to Ivy League schools in any meaningful way. I mean you might be able to find some metric by which some of these schools beat Dartmouth, but most of the so-called public ivies are substantially inferior to actual Ivy League schools in terms of research output, faculty quality, quality of student body, endowment size per capita, and just about any reasonable metric of school quality that you would like to use. This classification is basically a feel-good one for students not good enough to get into an Ivy League school (or, unfortunately, unable to afford going -- although the better Ivy League schools offer amazing financial aid).
Just to re-iterate: your undergraduate experience is only partially relevant (or not relevant at all) for the international ranking. WHAT MATTERS IS RESEARCH OUTPUT/QUALITY OF FACULTY .
If you look at first couple of rankings that you find in google you will see that +60% of the score is based of the academic reputation + citation scores. This purely measures the quality of faculty not undergraduate experience or how smart are undergraduate students.
Some ranking add metrics like ratio of students to faculty. This favors rich universities.
Now, US universities have the best faculty because they pay better than other universities, they have better RESEARCH FACILITIES (no one cares about classrooms when choosing where to take academic positions) and as mentioned somewhere in the thread there is snowball effect meaning that you want to work with the best possible people in your field and usually they happen to be in US.
Also, looking at the recent hirings in my field most of the best performing young faculty comes from outside US. Moreover, US PhD students are small minority - there are less than 20% of them at the top departments. My year there are 3 out of 20. Year above 2. Year below 4.
EPT
You can send me a pm with the data or post it in this thread, thank you! 
) without sacrificing their grades or getting too overwhelmed. There is also less competition in the U.S. because there are more colleges option available, unlike in Asian countries where kids would kill themselves to get to a decent college. That's probably why wealthy Asian parents send their kids to the U.S.; they want their kids to be happy.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m40U8.png)
