9 ms·

There's something a little creepy about saying there's nothing wrong with the American education system by only looking at those in the US of European descent a

by cletus 16y ago

There's something a little creepy about saying there's nothing wrong with the American education system by only looking at those in the US of European descent and excluding all others. Basically it doesn't matter how well or badly the rest of the population does, it doesn't change the OP's hypothesis. The point about immigrants scoring lower is well-taken but this is largely a language barrier. How exactly does this apply to, say, the African American segment of the population, many of whom have been in the US for hundreds of years and most of whom know no other language than English? Socioeconomic factors, the education level of your parents and so on obviously come into play here but I read this post and read it like this: "if we exclude all the problems in the US education system, the US education system is fine!" Perhaps that's not entirely fair but one must be very careful before discounting selection bias when drawing conclusions such as these. Now I'm not claiming the US education system is bad. Frankly I have no personal experience with it (coming from the "negative gap" of Australia). I will say one thing: the US has something we don't in Australia and that's a tenured teacher system that makes it (near-)impossible to fire teachers [1]. It's still not easy in Australia but it is easier. That strikes me as a problem. [1]: http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf

jerf 16y ago
Step one in solving problems is identify the problem. Especially in the political sphere people love to skip over this step for a variety of reasons I hardly have to spell out. If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation. My personal biases lead me to believe that if anything there's problems in both places, so my main point isn't that this person is necessarily right or wrong, my main point is Step One: Identify The Problem. It's often harder than you might think and often requires biases to be discarded.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "[If] the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation." Except that we already know how much of the problem stems from the home from the decades worth of research that has already been done. The PISA numbers don't contribute anything to our understanding of the problem, they're just a red herring designed to get people asking the wrong questions.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Since we already know the answer, I guess I'll just expose my ignorance: what % of test score variance is explained by the home environment? And while we are on the topic, what % of variance is caused by: IQ, non-IQ ethnic factors, school quality, teacher quality, non-home environment, etc? I.e., what are the principal components of educational outcomes? Also, what are the "wrong questions" this article is "designed" to get people to ask?
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      "what % of test score variance is explained by the home environment?" C.f. my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2046264 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2046264 Both of the sources I linked to are a good place to start in terms of understanding the numbers. Another good source is the Coleman Report, which is probably the most important education study ever done: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06389 http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06389 The data was later reanalyzed using more modern statistical techniques, so I'm not sure if the link has the new analysis or the original analysis. Both come to basically the same conclusions though. The most famous finding of the study was probably that within-school effects are much greater than between-school effects, meaning that what track your kid is placed into inside the school has a much greater impact on their education than if they go to a 'good' or 'bad' school. The interesting thing is that this study was commissioned in order to find evidence that black schools were performing much worse than white schools in order to justify integration, but the study actually found the opposite so the government essentially tried to bury it. But it was actually the largest study ever conducted at the time, and I think it's still one of the top five largest to this day.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Forgive me, but I lack a copy of the expensive proprietary software necessary to open your second link. Could you just tell us what % of variance is explained by home environment? (I'm also having a hard time finding it in your 1969 paper, but I admit I only skimmed the first 15 pages or so.)
- 2arrs2ells 16y ago
  "If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation." Even if we accept your premise, I'm not sure we need to accept your conclusion. Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). There are a number of schools (usually charters) who teach low-income students and structure themselves to compensate for any disadvantages students may have coming in (with strategies like longer school days/years). Some of these schools (KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Harlem Children's Zone) have had incredible success. It might seem strange to "overcompensate" for differences at home in schools - but it's a lot easier to change schools than it is to change people's home life.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    At least in the case of Harlem Children's Zone, it's a lot more than a school. So the conclusion that throwing money at schools won't work is correct. We should instead throw "school" money at things like HCZ. I think you're actually in agreement with jerf, but are using different definitions of "school".
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Unless by "poverty" you mean the sum culture, attitude, and circumstances that lead to continued poverty, I don't think "poverty" (i.e. a simple lack of money) is the cause of the home life problem. I think that cultural (not to be misread as racial!) attitudes and parenting strategies (or lack thereof) are far more problematic than the actual economics.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). Just adding my voice to the sibling posts - by our governments figures we're below the poverty line, we were substantially below it but we're clawing our way up slowly. We do literacy and numeracy educational activities, general knowledge, problem solving, etc. with our kids at home. The eldest is now at school so his rate of learning has fallen back a bit but I think we're probably doing as much as anyone above the poverty line. Where we falter is affording things like sports equipment, foreign trips, arts (theatre) and music events. IMO the whole schooling system probably needs working over; the assumption appears to be that school+parents are failing if kids aren't academic. Not everyone is, nor should be, particularly academic. We don't seem to decry standards in education when people leave school and can't do basic vehicle maintenance or simple DIY tasks. Education is not solely intellectual pursuit. How do you propose to "overcompensate" at school for a lack of motivation brought about by low parental engagement. Unless you're getting the parents into school to have co-learning experiences or something I don't really buy the idea that tightening your belt will stop your shoes falling off.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation. I would love to see this country actually try real wealth redistribution. Not 90% tax on the top 2%... but 90% tax on the top 60%. If throwing money at schools doesn't work... does throwing money at people?
  - charlesju 16y ago
    If you give a man a fish he can eat for a day, if you teach a man to fish he can live forever. Simply put, throwing money at poor people solves no problems. If anything it further entrenches the mentality of entitlement and dependency. I would actually argue it's the social services that are forcing minorities to be oppressed and under achieve in society. We need to stop blindly helping those that ask and teach them to help themselves. You can see trends of this everywhere. 1. Black Students from the eyes of a teacher. It's disheartening in a lot of places -- but his conclusion is similarly that we have given too much. http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-... 2. Africa has a huge dependency issue. And a lot of very smart African thinkers are suggesting less aid or directing the aid towards more sustainable endeavors is the long-term solution. http://www.nme.com/news/bono/32704 http://www.nme.com/news/bono/32704 http://store.whatarewedoinghere.net/What-Are-We-Doing-Here-Feature/M/B002TNXD50.htm http://store.whatarewedoinghere.net/What-Are-We-Doing-Here-F...
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      While the quote is catchy, it's not applicable as stated. In our society, money is the fishing pole and boat. You can teach a man to fish with his bare hands in the middle of Death Valley, but that will do him little good. He'll die just as fast, if not faster. Wealth redistribution isn't an either-or question. It's really giving the man fish today, because learning to fish takes a while. And learning to fish decently requires that you have a good constition. Our biggest entitlement programs go towards largely benefiting white people (everything from freeways to police departments to the courts to the military). The Marty link was a funny one. I used to do tutoring at a "black" school. I met teachers like him, who told me the students were worthless. Two of the "worthless" students I tutored, I was able to help them get 800s on their math SATs (one went to a military academy and the other Berkeley). The problem isn't that we've given too much, but the school system is filled with Marty's who never really gave at all.
endtime 16y ago
>How exactly does this apply to, say, the African American segment of the population, many of whom have been in the US for hundreds of years and most of whom know no other language than English? There's an extreme anti-education element to black culture in the US. Caring about and one's education and working hard in school is derided as "acting white". It doesn't apply to everyone, of course (I knew black Americans at Georgetown and Stanford), but it's significant enough to bring down aggregate measures quite a lot. I've also seen studies showing that black parents spend less time helping their children with schoolwork than white and Asian parents. The US school system isn't perfect (the inability to fire bad teachers, largely because of unions, is, in my opinion, among the biggest problems in the country), but it's not totally or even primarily at fault for the education problems among black people. Also: >There's something a little creepy about saying there's nothing wrong with the American education system by only looking at those in the US of European descent and excluding all others. You're misrepresenting this, not sure if it's deliberate, but this is done for the sake of comparing the US to Europe, which is pretty reasonable and not crypto-racist as you imply.
- airfoil 16y ago
  I'd agree that the US school system is not be the primary reason for education problems among blacks, but neither is the "extreme anti-education element." This element isn't exclusive to blacks and I don't see it as significant enough to bring down aggregate measures for blacks. That's too easy. Most black parents want their kids to do well in school. Unfortunately single parent households are prevalent in the black community. When a single parent is struggling to pay bills and keep food on the table that doesn't leave a lot time for helping with homework. Also, the lack of black role models has an impact. Artists and athletes are the overwhelming majority of the successful blacks that we see and I wouldn't consider them most of them to be role models. How many blacks do you see out front in the most successful companies? The psychological impact is hard to quantify, but it's there. Why should a black kid be an engineer when he can be a rapper? This isn't necessarily "extreme anti-education" it's more pro-do-what-I-see-as-successful. This loop has existed for hundreds of years in various forms and is incredibly hard to break. Black kids desperately need to see success in areas other than entertainment and sports.
borism 16y ago
who are the people "of US descent"?
yummyfajitas 16y ago
There's something a little creepy about saying there's nothing wrong with the American education system by only looking at those in the US of European descent and excluding all others. Controlling for exogenous variables is "creepy"? African Americans (and Asians) are excluded from comparison simply because Finland doesn't have them. Similarly, when comparing the US to Asian schools, the author excludes whites as well. The point here is to compare like to like.
- cletus 16y ago
  And you don't find the idea that in terms of education potential, the author's assumption that there is something fundamentally different about Americans of Asian, Caucasian or African descent just a little bit creepy? Like I said: I totally buy into the immigrant argument (including the language barrier) but to only compare Whites from the US to Europe (for a supposed "like for like" comparison), you're going beyond language and culture and introducing race as a variable. And no this isn't some kind of crypto-racist accusation. I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate between someone of Chinese descent whose ancestors came here in the 19th century to build the railroads to someone of Irish descent who came here a century ago.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    And you don't find the idea that in terms of education potential, the author's assumption that there is something fundamentally different about Americans of Asian, Caucasian or African descent just a little bit creepy? That's not an assumption, it's just a possibility the author is attempting to control for. I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate between someone of Chinese descent whose ancestors came here in the 19th century to build the railroads to someone of Irish descent who came here a century ago. The simplest way to reasonably differentiate between them is to look at them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_Americans.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_Americans.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American You seem to be asserting that allowing for the possibility that cultural or biological factors might affect educational outcomes is creepy. Is that an accurate assessment?
ianb 16y ago
The implication of comparing PISA scores unfavorably is that the US should then imitate other countries in order to improve. Another option is that we synthesize our own ways to improve education. That's what this article is really addressing... the implication is not that we should not try to do better, but how.
tensor 16y ago
My understanding of the problem with US schools is that they are funded by the taxes of the surrounding neighbourhood. Thus, a low income neighbourhood will have low quality schools. Even if a student does well in one of these schools, their chances for getting into a good university are still low due to the poor reputation of the school. I'm Canadian and this information came from talking to someone working in the Detroit area school system. So I'd appreciate any corrections or extra details. But, if this is correct, it seems to me that taking only those of european decent into account would completely hide the problem, as most europeans do not move into extremely poor areas.
Anechoic 16y ago
How exactly does this apply to, say, the African American segment of the population, many of whom have been in the US for hundreds of years and most of whom know no other language than English? "English" (at least as practiced in the USA) is not a singular thing. Go have a conversation with a "native" English speaker in inner city Baltimore or the backwoods of Georgia and I suspect that you'll spend a lot of time asking people to repeat themselves. edit: well someone apparently thinks this comment doesn't add to the discussion, so let me try to clarify: most everyone speaks "English" in the USA, but not the same "English". There are accents of course, but there are also different terms to reference the same thing ("pop" vs "soda" vs "coke", "grinder" vs "sub" vs "hoagie"), different pronunciations ("ask" vs "aks", "nuclear" vs "nukuler") and then you have regions like New Orleans where foreign words are regularly mixed in with English. For those that have the time, I recommend slogging your way through this ArsTechnica thread for a more in depth explanation of what I'm trying to say: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1128929&hilit=aave http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=112892... (if you don't have a lot of time, start on Page 3)
- jhamburger 16y ago
  I see what you're getting at but the examples you give- everyone knows what all of those words mean. Someone may say "pop" but they still know what soda is. People who say "aks" are not confused by the word ask.
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    Well those weren't exhaustive examples, but I'd still disagree - for the longest time, I though "hoagie" was a polish food (I grew up in "grinder" territory) and I was mystified the first time someone asked me to pick up an "orange coke" at the drug store. Another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03iwAY4KlIU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03iwAY4KlIU it's all English, and you can often get a general meaning from context, but the vid gives examples of words I've never heard, or more familiar English words used in combinations that obscure the meaning. So of course you can take someone from the video and drop them in NYC and they'll be able to function, but there will likely be things they miss and things NYCers will miss talking to them. Now in a school environment, that can make a huge distance.

by cletus 16y ago

jerf 16y ago

Step one in solving problems is identify the problem. Especially in the political sphere people love to skip over this step for a variety of reasons I hardly have to spell out. If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation. My personal biases lead me to believe that if anything there's problems in both places, so my main point isn't that this person is necessarily right or wrong, my main point is Step One: Identify The Problem. It's often harder than you might think and often requires biases to be discarded.

Alex3917 16y ago
"[If] the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation." Except that we already know how much of the problem stems from the home from the decades worth of research that has already been done. The PISA numbers don't contribute anything to our understanding of the problem, they're just a red herring designed to get people asking the wrong questions.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Since we already know the answer, I guess I'll just expose my ignorance: what % of test score variance is explained by the home environment? And while we are on the topic, what % of variance is caused by: IQ, non-IQ ethnic factors, school quality, teacher quality, non-home environment, etc? I.e., what are the principal components of educational outcomes? Also, what are the "wrong questions" this article is "designed" to get people to ask?
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "what % of test score variance is explained by the home environment?" C.f. my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2046264 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2046264 Both of the sources I linked to are a good place to start in terms of understanding the numbers. Another good source is the Coleman Report, which is probably the most important education study ever done: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06389 http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06389 The data was later reanalyzed using more modern statistical techniques, so I'm not sure if the link has the new analysis or the original analysis. Both come to basically the same conclusions though. The most famous finding of the study was probably that within-school effects are much greater than between-school effects, meaning that what track your kid is placed into inside the school has a much greater impact on their education than if they go to a 'good' or 'bad' school. The interesting thing is that this study was commissioned in order to find evidence that black schools were performing much worse than white schools in order to justify integration, but the study actually found the opposite so the government essentially tried to bury it. But it was actually the largest study ever conducted at the time, and I think it's still one of the top five largest to this day.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Forgive me, but I lack a copy of the expensive proprietary software necessary to open your second link. Could you just tell us what % of variance is explained by home environment? (I'm also having a hard time finding it in your 1969 paper, but I admit I only skimmed the first 15 pages or so.)
2arrs2ells 16y ago
"If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation." Even if we accept your premise, I'm not sure we need to accept your conclusion. Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). There are a number of schools (usually charters) who teach low-income students and structure themselves to compensate for any disadvantages students may have coming in (with strategies like longer school days/years). Some of these schools (KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Harlem Children's Zone) have had incredible success. It might seem strange to "overcompensate" for differences at home in schools - but it's a lot easier to change schools than it is to change people's home life.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  At least in the case of Harlem Children's Zone, it's a lot more than a school. So the conclusion that throwing money at schools won't work is correct. We should instead throw "school" money at things like HCZ. I think you're actually in agreement with jerf, but are using different definitions of "school".
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Unless by "poverty" you mean the sum culture, attitude, and circumstances that lead to continued poverty, I don't think "poverty" (i.e. a simple lack of money) is the cause of the home life problem. I think that cultural (not to be misread as racial!) attitudes and parenting strategies (or lack thereof) are far more problematic than the actual economics.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). Just adding my voice to the sibling posts - by our governments figures we're below the poverty line, we were substantially below it but we're clawing our way up slowly. We do literacy and numeracy educational activities, general knowledge, problem solving, etc. with our kids at home. The eldest is now at school so his rate of learning has fallen back a bit but I think we're probably doing as much as anyone above the poverty line. Where we falter is affording things like sports equipment, foreign trips, arts (theatre) and music events. IMO the whole schooling system probably needs working over; the assumption appears to be that school+parents are failing if kids aren't academic. Not everyone is, nor should be, particularly academic. We don't seem to decry standards in education when people leave school and can't do basic vehicle maintenance or simple DIY tasks. Education is not solely intellectual pursuit. How do you propose to "overcompensate" at school for a lack of motivation brought about by low parental engagement. Unless you're getting the parents into school to have co-learning experiences or something I don't really buy the idea that tightening your belt will stop your shoes falling off.
kenjackson 16y ago
If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation. I would love to see this country actually try real wealth redistribution. Not 90% tax on the top 2%... but 90% tax on the top 60%. If throwing money at schools doesn't work... does throwing money at people?
- charlesju 16y ago
  If you give a man a fish he can eat for a day, if you teach a man to fish he can live forever. Simply put, throwing money at poor people solves no problems. If anything it further entrenches the mentality of entitlement and dependency. I would actually argue it's the social services that are forcing minorities to be oppressed and under achieve in society. We need to stop blindly helping those that ask and teach them to help themselves. You can see trends of this everywhere. 1. Black Students from the eyes of a teacher. It's disheartening in a lot of places -- but his conclusion is similarly that we have given too much. http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-... 2. Africa has a huge dependency issue. And a lot of very smart African thinkers are suggesting less aid or directing the aid towards more sustainable endeavors is the long-term solution. http://www.nme.com/news/bono/32704 http://www.nme.com/news/bono/32704 http://store.whatarewedoinghere.net/What-Are-We-Doing-Here-Feature/M/B002TNXD50.htm http://store.whatarewedoinghere.net/What-Are-We-Doing-Here-F...
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    While the quote is catchy, it's not applicable as stated. In our society, money is the fishing pole and boat. You can teach a man to fish with his bare hands in the middle of Death Valley, but that will do him little good. He'll die just as fast, if not faster. Wealth redistribution isn't an either-or question. It's really giving the man fish today, because learning to fish takes a while. And learning to fish decently requires that you have a good constition. Our biggest entitlement programs go towards largely benefiting white people (everything from freeways to police departments to the courts to the military). The Marty link was a funny one. I used to do tutoring at a "black" school. I met teachers like him, who told me the students were worthless. Two of the "worthless" students I tutored, I was able to help them get 800s on their math SATs (one went to a military academy and the other Berkeley). The problem isn't that we've given too much, but the school system is filled with Marty's who never really gave at all.

endtime 16y ago

>How exactly does this apply to, say, the African American segment of the population, many of whom have been in the US for hundreds of years and most of whom know no other language than English? There's an extreme anti-education element to black culture in the US. Caring about and one's education and working hard in school is derided as "acting white". It doesn't apply to everyone, of course (I knew black Americans at Georgetown and Stanford), but it's significant enough to bring down aggregate measures quite a lot. I've also seen studies showing that black parents spend less time helping their children with schoolwork than white and Asian parents. The US school system isn't perfect (the inability to fire bad teachers, largely because of unions, is, in my opinion, among the biggest problems in the country), but it's not totally or even primarily at fault for the education problems among black people. Also: >There's something a little creepy about saying there's nothing wrong with the American education system by only looking at those in the US of European descent and excluding all others. You're misrepresenting this, not sure if it's deliberate, but this is done for the sake of comparing the US to Europe, which is pretty reasonable and not crypto-racist as you imply.

airfoil 16y ago
I'd agree that the US school system is not be the primary reason for education problems among blacks, but neither is the "extreme anti-education element." This element isn't exclusive to blacks and I don't see it as significant enough to bring down aggregate measures for blacks. That's too easy. Most black parents want their kids to do well in school. Unfortunately single parent households are prevalent in the black community. When a single parent is struggling to pay bills and keep food on the table that doesn't leave a lot time for helping with homework. Also, the lack of black role models has an impact. Artists and athletes are the overwhelming majority of the successful blacks that we see and I wouldn't consider them most of them to be role models. How many blacks do you see out front in the most successful companies? The psychological impact is hard to quantify, but it's there. Why should a black kid be an engineer when he can be a rapper? This isn't necessarily "extreme anti-education" it's more pro-do-what-I-see-as-successful. This loop has existed for hundreds of years in various forms and is incredibly hard to break. Black kids desperately need to see success in areas other than entertainment and sports.

borism 16y ago

who are the people "of US descent"?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

There's something a little creepy about saying there's nothing wrong with the American education system by only looking at those in the US of European descent and excluding all others. Controlling for exogenous variables is "creepy"? African Americans (and Asians) are excluded from comparison simply because Finland doesn't have them. Similarly, when comparing the US to Asian schools, the author excludes whites as well. The point here is to compare like to like.

cletus 16y ago
And you don't find the idea that in terms of education potential, the author's assumption that there is something fundamentally different about Americans of Asian, Caucasian or African descent just a little bit creepy? Like I said: I totally buy into the immigrant argument (including the language barrier) but to only compare Whites from the US to Europe (for a supposed "like for like" comparison), you're going beyond language and culture and introducing race as a variable. And no this isn't some kind of crypto-racist accusation. I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate between someone of Chinese descent whose ancestors came here in the 19th century to build the railroads to someone of Irish descent who came here a century ago.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  And you don't find the idea that in terms of education potential, the author's assumption that there is something fundamentally different about Americans of Asian, Caucasian or African descent just a little bit creepy? That's not an assumption, it's just a possibility the author is attempting to control for. I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate between someone of Chinese descent whose ancestors came here in the 19th century to build the railroads to someone of Irish descent who came here a century ago. The simplest way to reasonably differentiate between them is to look at them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_Americans.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_Americans.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American You seem to be asserting that allowing for the possibility that cultural or biological factors might affect educational outcomes is creepy. Is that an accurate assessment?

ianb 16y ago

The implication of comparing PISA scores unfavorably is that the US should then imitate other countries in order to improve. Another option is that we synthesize our own ways to improve education. That's what this article is really addressing... the implication is not that we should not try to do better, but how.

tensor 16y ago

My understanding of the problem with US schools is that they are funded by the taxes of the surrounding neighbourhood. Thus, a low income neighbourhood will have low quality schools. Even if a student does well in one of these schools, their chances for getting into a good university are still low due to the poor reputation of the school. I'm Canadian and this information came from talking to someone working in the Detroit area school system. So I'd appreciate any corrections or extra details. But, if this is correct, it seems to me that taking only those of european decent into account would completely hide the problem, as most europeans do not move into extremely poor areas.

Anechoic 16y ago

How exactly does this apply to, say, the African American segment of the population, many of whom have been in the US for hundreds of years and most of whom know no other language than English? "English" (at least as practiced in the USA) is not a singular thing. Go have a conversation with a "native" English speaker in inner city Baltimore or the backwoods of Georgia and I suspect that you'll spend a lot of time asking people to repeat themselves. edit: well someone apparently thinks this comment doesn't add to the discussion, so let me try to clarify: most everyone speaks "English" in the USA, but not the same "English". There are accents of course, but there are also different terms to reference the same thing ("pop" vs "soda" vs "coke", "grinder" vs "sub" vs "hoagie"), different pronunciations ("ask" vs "aks", "nuclear" vs "nukuler") and then you have regions like New Orleans where foreign words are regularly mixed in with English. For those that have the time, I recommend slogging your way through this ArsTechnica thread for a more in depth explanation of what I'm trying to say: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1128929&hilit=aave http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=112892... (if you don't have a lot of time, start on Page 3)

jhamburger 16y ago
I see what you're getting at but the examples you give- everyone knows what all of those words mean. Someone may say "pop" but they still know what soda is. People who say "aks" are not confused by the word ask.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  Well those weren't exhaustive examples, but I'd still disagree - for the longest time, I though "hoagie" was a polish food (I grew up in "grinder" territory) and I was mystified the first time someone asked me to pick up an "orange coke" at the drug store. Another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03iwAY4KlIU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03iwAY4KlIU it's all English, and you can often get a general meaning from context, but the vid gives examples of words I've never heard, or more familiar English words used in combinations that obscure the meaning. So of course you can take someone from the video and drop them in NYC and they'll be able to function, but there will likely be things they miss and things NYCers will miss talking to them. Now in a school environment, that can make a huge distance.