3 ms·

One of the things I always ask in these discussions is "so what did that do for them" Finland is also an education super-power but what does it really do for th

One of the things I always ask in these discussions is "so what did that do for them" Finland is also an education super-power but what does it really do for the country? Unless all countries are underdeveloped, education is a hygiene factor and doesn't as such provide any benefits. In Europe, Switzerland is one of the countries with the fewest academics. Instead they focused on technical educations (starting from something akin to trade school up to university level knowledge). The results while most European countries first now a waking up the the realization that academic education isn't the only education of value and is scrambling to make their tradeschools/technical schools working better, Switzerland is one of the few countries doing very specialized production that can't be outsourced (for now) In other words education is important but the focusing on education especially higher but also on the elementary level as some sort of indication of how well a country is fairing is not really a useful metric.

dm319 9y ago
I would say a technical education is an education, but I agree, pure academia isn't for everyone - though the article doesn't distinguish this. In fact, Switzerland does very well by the OECD metric [1]. Why is education important? Can I suggest we compare two countries singled out in the article as 'could do better's - the USA and UK, and their recent democratic decisions. Compare that to Canada's cabinet, who, for example, has appointed someone with a PhD as minister for science [2], a doctor as minister for health [3] etc etc. I don't think I need to give examples of Scandinavian countries which regularly top the rankings for both wealth and pay equality. Maybe a population where the country has valued education are less likely to say they "have had enough of experts" [4], more likely to respect the knowledge of a specialist, and more likely to have skills which are capable of transferring to the changing work market. The problem is that investing in education has its pay-offs 20-30 years down the line, which is why, even if we believe in education, governments are reluctant to actually spend the money on it. [1] http://www.oecd.org/edu/bycountry/switzerland/ http://www.oecd.org/edu/bycountry/switzerland/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsty_Duncan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsty_Duncan [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Philpott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Philpott [4] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Gove https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Gove
- ThomPete 9y ago
  But again I must come back to the simple thing that appointing a PHD as a minister for science means very little because politics aren't science or business for that matter. Politics are humans prioritizing various intersociety related issues and many of these prioritization are scientifically or rationally absurd but are the right solution for the collective. The very idea that better educated people make better decisions in politics is simply wrong as far as I can see. Canada isn't benefitting anymore than Finland is. There are bigger factors that count.
  - dm319 9y ago
    > The very idea that better educated people make better decisions in politics is simply wrong as far as I can see. "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" --Thomas Jefferson But also a country that values education is more likely to value the opinion of an expert, more likely to question a promise or political sound bite. E2E encryption is a good example of the divide between politics and the science. I'm not saying that the computer scientists have the answer here, but ignoring what they say is not the way to come to a policy that will benefit the country.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Again there is a difference between fundamentals and then optimizations. The point i am trying to make is that it doesent matter whether you are number #1 or #30 what matters is whether your population on average is educated
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Regarding the Jefferson quote, John Adams (surprise!) didn't agree: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Point being, you'll need more than a Jefferson quote to establish your point that information is sufficient for a competent electorate.
      - 9y ago
RobertoG 9y ago
If you accept that what really means the sentence "the good of the country" is "the good of all the people of the country" , something that, by the way, it seems we have forgotten lately, then education by itself is a desired outcome. Education, good health and, in general, a happy life for all should be the goal, not the means. Also, in this age, the most important asset is knowledge, because almost anything else can be compensated for with knowledge.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  The point is that at some point there is diminishing returns. Findland and Canada scores top characters but aren't the top countries i.e. they don't benefit as countries more than countries with worse education. That's the point I was trying to make. And I disagree that knowledge is important in the way you seem to talk about it. Knowledge is applying solution to problems yet many problems humans aren't capable of solving alone and thus will need to trust machines to do but that's a whole other discussion :)
rubenfiszel 9y ago
I would be interested to see your source about Switzerland. Not that I am doubting the claim but it is a small country with some relatively big universities in Zurich, Geneva, Fribourg. To ponder that assertion, I would also add that you have some of the two best ranked engineering universities in continental Europe (EPFL and ETHZ), the best hotel school in the world (EHL) and one of the best business school in the world (St-Gallen).
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
Highly educated immigrants could be a boon to a society. Or it could be a drag on wages of white collar workers. Nothing is ever all good or all bad. > In other words education is important but the focusing on education especially higher but also on the elementary level as some sort of indication of how well a country is fairing is not really a useful metric. It isn't even a good metric for determining a nation's education status. The number of quality universities is a far better indicator. Canada has a handful of quality universities. The US has hundreds. So how much sense does it make to call canada an education superpower?
- biggerbistro 9y ago
  The number of "for-profit" scum schools that have cropped up lately to stands to challenge this idea further. There is heavy foreign demand for Canadian education but not always prioritizing the good institutions. I had a Chinese friend tell me that in China it doesn't matter which Canadian school you went to, just that you went to a Canadian school. Nice to have that reputation but it is ultimately self-destructing.

dm319 9y ago

I would say a technical education is an education, but I agree, pure academia isn't for everyone - though the article doesn't distinguish this. In fact, Switzerland does very well by the OECD metric [1]. Why is education important? Can I suggest we compare two countries singled out in the article as 'could do better's - the USA and UK, and their recent democratic decisions. Compare that to Canada's cabinet, who, for example, has appointed someone with a PhD as minister for science [2], a doctor as minister for health [3] etc etc. I don't think I need to give examples of Scandinavian countries which regularly top the rankings for both wealth and pay equality. Maybe a population where the country has valued education are less likely to say they "have had enough of experts" [4], more likely to respect the knowledge of a specialist, and more likely to have skills which are capable of transferring to the changing work market. The problem is that investing in education has its pay-offs 20-30 years down the line, which is why, even if we believe in education, governments are reluctant to actually spend the money on it. [1] http://www.oecd.org/edu/bycountry/switzerland/ http://www.oecd.org/edu/bycountry/switzerland/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsty_Duncan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsty_Duncan [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Philpott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Philpott [4] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Gove https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

ThomPete 9y ago
But again I must come back to the simple thing that appointing a PHD as a minister for science means very little because politics aren't science or business for that matter. Politics are humans prioritizing various intersociety related issues and many of these prioritization are scientifically or rationally absurd but are the right solution for the collective. The very idea that better educated people make better decisions in politics is simply wrong as far as I can see. Canada isn't benefitting anymore than Finland is. There are bigger factors that count.
- dm319 9y ago
  > The very idea that better educated people make better decisions in politics is simply wrong as far as I can see. "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" --Thomas Jefferson But also a country that values education is more likely to value the opinion of an expert, more likely to question a promise or political sound bite. E2E encryption is a good example of the divide between politics and the science. I'm not saying that the computer scientists have the answer here, but ignoring what they say is not the way to come to a policy that will benefit the country.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Again there is a difference between fundamentals and then optimizations. The point i am trying to make is that it doesent matter whether you are number #1 or #30 what matters is whether your population on average is educated
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Regarding the Jefferson quote, John Adams (surprise!) didn't agree: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Point being, you'll need more than a Jefferson quote to establish your point that information is sufficient for a competent electorate.
    - 9y ago

RobertoG 9y ago

If you accept that what really means the sentence "the good of the country" is "the good of all the people of the country" , something that, by the way, it seems we have forgotten lately, then education by itself is a desired outcome. Education, good health and, in general, a happy life for all should be the goal, not the means. Also, in this age, the most important asset is knowledge, because almost anything else can be compensated for with knowledge.

ThomPete 9y ago
The point is that at some point there is diminishing returns. Findland and Canada scores top characters but aren't the top countries i.e. they don't benefit as countries more than countries with worse education. That's the point I was trying to make. And I disagree that knowledge is important in the way you seem to talk about it. Knowledge is applying solution to problems yet many problems humans aren't capable of solving alone and thus will need to trust machines to do but that's a whole other discussion :)

rubenfiszel 9y ago

I would be interested to see your source about Switzerland. Not that I am doubting the claim but it is a small country with some relatively big universities in Zurich, Geneva, Fribourg. To ponder that assertion, I would also add that you have some of the two best ranked engineering universities in continental Europe (EPFL and ETHZ), the best hotel school in the world (EHL) and one of the best business school in the world (St-Gallen).

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago

Highly educated immigrants could be a boon to a society. Or it could be a drag on wages of white collar workers. Nothing is ever all good or all bad. > In other words education is important but the focusing on education especially higher but also on the elementary level as some sort of indication of how well a country is fairing is not really a useful metric. It isn't even a good metric for determining a nation's education status. The number of quality universities is a far better indicator. Canada has a handful of quality universities. The US has hundreds. So how much sense does it make to call canada an education superpower?

biggerbistro 9y ago
The number of "for-profit" scum schools that have cropped up lately to stands to challenge this idea further. There is heavy foreign demand for Canadian education but not always prioritizing the good institutions. I had a Chinese friend tell me that in China it doesn't matter which Canadian school you went to, just that you went to a Canadian school. Nice to have that reputation but it is ultimately self-destructing.