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.
Yes, so Chinese students get the best that US can offer while a lot of US students study in some third rate universities. Good for China
Proportionally though, the favors are much more in the US students favor since most Chinese students aren't going to be going to very good schools in any country.
There is an even bigger economic entity than the US to take over for China: the EU.
True, but the comparison is difficult given the EU's nature compared to that of countries. I do hope a space race gets sparked though. Europe, US, China with Russia, India, Japan and Brazil as also-rans?
SORRY. but if you compare Shanghai and Boston (or any other city in US) in the PISA test, Boston will look like some African country. I am sorry. but it is the truth. US really need to improve its education system. It has the best universities in the world but not the primary or secondary level education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
You are comparing one city or one part of a city to an entire country. If we take a place such as Boston or some other individual cities I am sure it will blow away Shanghai on testing. Again you have to factor in the entire country- including that 3/4ths of China's population in extreme poverty- I'll bet those test scores aren't so hot.
And again, the luxury goods thing is brought up all the time, and it is sheer volume- it doesn't mean everyone in China is doing great. It means they have a HUGE population, and so the small slice of that population who can actually afford luxury goods ends up being a big number since their total population is over a BILLION.
And it keeps getting mentioned that the rural population drags China down in wealth or living standards. Even the big cities are really not very nice compared to those in developed nations. My wife is from there, most of her family still lives there in one of the more modern cities- Guangzhou. Sure it is more modern than the countryside and has some parts that look nice, but overall you know right away you are in a developing nation when you go there- seeing how so much of the city looks, how many, many of the apartment buildings look- and the basic, low standard of living you see in many of those apartments- even those of the people with decent money. It is a nation that has a LONG ways to go before really having much of a developed nation standard of living.
Give you some facts. Two types of Chinese students go to US for college nowadays. Very smart students who go to the top university and can score full scholarship. The other type is the very dumb students who fail to get admitted in Chinese Universities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Proportionally though, the favors are much more in the US students favor since most Chinese students aren't going to be going to very good schools in any country.
I do agree with you that China is still underdeveloped in terms of per capita income. Still my point is that China is a huge country, with a great regional divide. The divide is much bigger than in US. The richest state in US maybe only have 2 or 3 times GDP per capita than the poorest. But in China, the riches may have 10 times more GDP per capita than the poorest.
How come can Tibet reach the same level of development in Shanghai? Due to the geographic, demographic, political and ethinical factors, it is just nearly impossible.
Still that does not deny the fact that the east coast part of China is catching up with countries like South Korea.
Hongkong is part of China, can you deny that it is not an advanced economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Here's the issue: that huge rural population is still composed of people. Every country has some stratification in wealth. When you try to change the comparison by simply removing the bottom rungs of a country to compare it to the entire economic spectrum of another country, then you're setting up a pretty useless comparison.
China is making massive improvements and it has a pretty good chance of having the largest GDP by nominal value within a decade provided that the US continues with its sluggish growth and China with its faster growth rate. Though, of course, predictions of those assumptions holding for a decade can be off. The article you first posted actually warns of how misleading these stats could be.
Anyhow, it's sort of inevitable isn't it? I can see India having a larger economy by purchasing power parity compared to the US within two decades. If you have a population that large (such as with China) even having a relatively modest GDP per capita can make a huge difference in aggregate. It'd likely follow the trail of China which right now and over its two decades has been gaining from that demographic dividend--meanwhile, India's probably not going to hit the real start of that until a decade from now.
It will never become a super power because it doesn't speak English and has a COMMUNIST government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac15
I don't think so!
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.
