4 ms·
For some reason I end up in a lot of debates on relative school quality between countries across the world (presumably because I live in another country than I
by roel_v 14y ago
For some reason I end up in a lot of debates on relative school quality between countries across the world (presumably because I live in another country than I was born in, and because I work with academics a lot...) Many have an opinion on country X's school system being better than country Y's. Most of the time, this opinion isn't based on results, it seems (from my off-the-cuff analysis) that school are generally considered 'better' if they are 'stricter' (i.e., place more emphasis on discipline and respect, for example school who let people eat in class must be horrible), and the amount of hard science they teach everyone from a young age on (e.g., teaching everyone hard science more than the basics is better than just teaching those with an affinity for it, and teaching it starting at 6 is better than teaching at 12).
However, people can seldom back that up with evidence. For example, using artificial metrics such as scores in the various Olympiads (math, physics) or more 'utilitarian' metrics such as GDP (because people do use the prosperity of a country, for which GDP is a rough proxy, to justify their preferences, or rather they use it as a driving factor in the optimization function that use to determine which country's school system is 'best').
I get into a bitter argument with my mother, of all people, over this, with her unmovable stance being that in my home country, education is better because schools are strict, pupils address teachers with an honorific, etc; while in the country that I live in, that is much less important. (I'm not Asian and this is not an East vs West debate :) ) Yet in my current country, GDP is higher than in my home country, with many other things being similar; while I have no hard proof that the school system is the only or even a major driver of this difference, wouldn't it make sense that I'd send my daughter to a school in a system that has proven its real-world effectiveness, even if aspects of it go against the common wisdom or 'cultural intuitions' that I was brought up in, and that many in my old country still adhere to? While I guess it would be hard for many to admit that they've believed in things that turned out to be wrong for decades (I personally had that problem less because I never quite identified with the ethos of my old country that much), I'd say rationally that it's more likely that that part of the culture is wrong, rather than there being some extreme coincidence in which, despite having a substandard schooling system, many of the effects of that schooling system in my new country turned out better than those of the old country.
Sorry that this turned into such a long post - I just find it frustrating that, in this debate just like in so many others ;), it's common for people to ignore any evidence-based analysis of this question, or restrict themselves to that evidence that is favorable to their standpoint; and I do think that general prosperity is a direct consequence of a well-performing educational system.
- saraid216 14y agoYou give several examples of invalid evidence; could you speak a bit more to what you consider valid evidence?
- roel_v 14y agoWell by 'evidence' I mean, metrics that quantify the quality of the educational system. As I explained in another comment in this thread, I think a substantial part of the goal of education, for many people, is in bettering their lives in the material sense; so, if we define 'quality' as 'the extent to which something fulfills its purpose', then the quality of education can, in some aspects, be measured by the amount that it allows people to better their lives; for example, to put that more concretely, in a country where a big enough portion of the people receives an education, and if we attribute an increase in GDP at least partially to an increase in education (a not unreasonable assumption, imo), and if other factors remain relatively stable, then we can measure the success of the educational system by using prosperity as a proxy for it. I proposed per capita GDP in the example above, there probably are others; maybe the weighted for cost of living median wage of those who actually got educations, for example. But analyses or data like that aren't that easy to come by, so if enough people get an education, we could use overall GDP as a proxy. I acknowledge fully that there are many more factors at play here, so I'm not proposing this as a one-size-fits-all measurement; but just as cash-on-cash-return can be a useful first-order indicator in some contexts and for some purposes to get an estimate of the performance of an investment; and just like lines of code can be a useful first-order indicator in some contexts and for some purposes to get an estimate of the complexity of a code base; GDP can be (I'm arguing) a useful first-order indicator of the extent to which an educational system fulfills its goals - which I'd argue is the 'quality' thereof. But, to answer your question more directly, I guess that any metric on the material (or maybe even mental) prosperity of an educated subset of a population would be 'good evidence'. It depends on what one defines the goals of education to be; but realistically, I think that the material part should be a sizable part of any such definition.
- saraid216 14y agoThere's a lot in your post that implies that the distribution of education is irrelevant; that there's no need to rate the quality of an education system according to how many people are being educated, but just that whoever manages to get any education is being educated well. Would you agree with that assessment?