Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way Singapore teaches to the test is an art form, so let's leave them out of this...if anything it is Korea that is the clear world #1 in competitive tests, if that rocks your boat...
US is too and diverse to discuss as a homogeneous entity. Anecdotally of course, I would argue the top US schools are far and above the best in the world for creating bright, ambitious, and successful professionals. But...not the best place to create academic monsters at a high rate...USSR, whoops, Russia, Central Europe, China, and Japan with true mathematical studs. The top Latin American schools are very impressive...
But the average US school is...well...average, and not very good at all given we are the US and given the $$ spent on some of these sham factories. And the worst US schools? DC, SF, NY, etc., districts that have $100m to >$1 billion budgets? They are horrific save for the magnet schools which are only public in the sense than Eton is public.
Remember, I am talking educational value per unit of expenditure here, real or nominal.
US universities? They follow suit. These are the ones are loaded with talent (with huge #s of foreign professors and students), while the average US university is a terribly inefficient institution at building America's human capital.
The average American does not realize that for the quality of education per $(user out-of-pocket fees + the PV of taxes), the average US university is abysmal. Just awful.
US students succeed in life despite its terrible higher ed system, not because of it...Most Americans entering college have incredible street smarts...making the four-six years at undergrad such a darn (and expensive) shame...
The top 10-20% are smart enough to free themselves of the albatross of a long list of pointless requirements. The rest are not, not because they are not intelligent, but perhaps because they are not cynical enough...
The American unvirersity system is the best in the world because, after world war II, we started the GI bill that spent lots of federal dollars to colleges. At the same time, in Europe they were trying to rebuild from the war. Consequently, the U.S. got a huge jump on them.
Another reason is that we finance our universities with tax deductable donations and high tuitions. The result is that Harvard University has a bigger enodwment then every university in the U.K. added together and multiplied by three. (That figure was from a few years ago - pre market crash.)
So we fund our universities better, allowing us to cherry pick the best professors from around the world.
But all of that is for RESEARCH. We have the best research universities in the world, which naturally leads to strong graduate programs.
The quality of undergraduate education is variable. We have a lot of quantity, but the quality is only mediocra.
The American unvirersity system is the best in the world because, after world war II, we started the GI bill that spent lots of federal dollars to colleges. At the same time, in Europe they were trying to rebuild from the war. Consequently, the U.S. got a huge jump on them.
First off, there is no university system per se for the US as a whole, only in a few states. there is however, a higher ed market.
Second, claims of being the "best in world" is the oft-used mantra that may have once been reasonable for US schools on a per $ basis at one point, but now can only be used for the top schools.
Importantly, what criteria are you applying? I am looking at this from two perspectives. One is value added to the consumer, the student. Two, value added to the society, the tax payer, which incorporates the research output that can be captured by the US. On both counts, most US universities are too expensive for the task at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Another reason is that we finance our universities with tax deductable donations and high tuitions. The result is that Harvard University has a bigger enodwment then every university in the U.K. added together and multiplied by three. (That figure was from a few years ago - pre market crash.)
So we fund our universities better, allowing us to cherry pick the best professors from around the world.
But all of that is for RESEARCH. We have the best research universities in the world, which naturally leads to strong graduate programs.
The quality of undergraduate education is variable. We have a lot of quantity, but the quality is only mediocra.
That we subsidize the heck out of our universities makes the $ return even more appalling.
But I agree, where we have embraced the market model, we have done excellent. Where we have not, we have not. Too many US universities place the classical values of higher education above petty politics and political correctness. Again, the point is to evaluate them per $ expenditure.
Are classes really worth the $100+ per lecture? Do professors really add much value beyond the textbook? Is research output really generating social and economic return beyond the abandonment of teaching of undergrads and beyond self-enrichment of less faculty?
Cherry Picking: Yes, our best universities have the resources to do so. They also cheery pick their graduate students. Go to any top ten research department and look at the face boards. They are predominantly foreign. So let's look at our business model. Tax the taxpayers; subsidize research universities; give them local tax holidays; hire a good % of faculty from abroad; admit a very high % of foreign grad students; grant them financial aid, based in part on taxpayer dollars; do not require them to teach or teach well; and when the technology transfer is complete, allow an increase $ to return to their home countries or encourage those that stay to form companies that outsource jobs to their home countries. Just brilliant.
Yes. Our top research universities are fantastic...but for whom?
Certainly not for the average American undergraduate.
Certainly not for the American taxpayer, who is getting fairly low if not negative returns for his tax $$.
Revamp the models at our public schools. They are failing the vast majority and doing so at increasing cost.
We have alot of very bright kids in school these days but we also have TONS of kids who are a complete disgrace and we shouldn't even bother wasting our tax dollars on them.
Realistically, kids should only have to go up to 8th grade. At that point, either school is working for them or it isn't. If it isn't working out we shouldn't force them to continue. Instead we should give them options, such as working. Just imagine if you were a kid 14 or so and you were able to work for the next four years, making 15-20k. By the time you were 18 and you had to move out of your parents house you would have around 50k saved up at least if you saved wisely. That is a nice chuck of change to put towards a house. Then instead of working for the next 30 years to pay it off, you could pay it off in 15 years or less.
But how many people don't like school at 14, but turn out to be really good at it by 18? I know a lot of people that were not really great in high school, but rocked it out in college and graduate school. Maturity is a large part of it, and I don't think kicking kids out at 8th grade is going to solve any of our probelms. No offense but stores and food chains run by 14 year olds will not be the most oraganized places in the world.....
That's why they wouldn't be run by the 14 year olds. I had a job at 15 so it's possible to work and be young.
It shouldn't be the student's choice, but if the parents sign them off they should not be forced to attend school if they don't see it as important. Many other countries in the world have this policy, including some of the big education hot-shots.
Why spend time and money on students who aren't applying themselves or are incapable of truly passing all the way through 12th grade? Have work training programs available. Why waste their time trying to get them to pass Chemistry or Algebra II when they could be very successful at learning plumbing or another marketable skill? Don't give up on their education, just make it more worthwhile and applicable to their lives.
I didn't say they couldn't work, but I do think that we will never break the cycle of poverty in this country if we let kids choose to work instead of go to school. THe big education hot shots have infalted number for academic success becuase they only educate the brightest and the best. I am not sure what that solves besides playing with stats? If they want to work and can't pass 12th grade, then maybe an alternative diploma needs to be granted......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
