

Why It’s Never Mattered That America’s Schools ‘Lag’ Behind Other Countries - yummyfajitas
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/16/why-its-never-mattered-that-americas-schools-lag-behind-other-countries/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

======
tokenadult
The article says, "While the United States has a dismal track-record of
inequality, we treat our brightest minds quite well."

And the second part of that statement is baloney. While everyone knows that
the United States does badly in educational equality, the idea that we do well
by able students is directly disagreed with by scholars who have spent years
studying the issue.

<http://educationnext.org/teaching-math-to-the-talented/>

"Unfortunately, we found that the percentage of students in the U.S. Class of
2009 who were highly accomplished in math is well below that of most countries
with which the United States generally compares itself. No fewer than 30 of
the 56 other countries that participated in the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) math test, including most of the world’s
industrialized nations, had a larger percentage of students who scored at the
international equivalent of the advanced level on our own National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests. Moreover, while the percentage of
students scoring at the advanced level on NAEP varies considerably among the
50 states, not even the best state does well in international comparison. A
2005 report from the National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering
Storm, succinctly put the issue into perspective: 'Although many people assume
that the United States will always be a world leader in science and
technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and
ideas exist throughout the world.'"

The full report underlying this online article can be found here:

[http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-19_Hanushe...](http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-19_HanushekPetersonWoessmann.pdf)

Anyway, this is implausible based on recent reports that millions of United
States students find school boringly easy,

[http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-07-09/scho...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-07-09/school-
too-easy/56120106/1)

"The findings, out today from the Center for American Progress, a Washington
think tank that champions "progressive ideas,' analyze three years of
questionnaires from the Department of Education's National Assessment of
Educational Progress, a national test given each year. Among the findings:

•37% of fourth-graders say their math work is "often" or 'always' too easy;

•57% of eighth-graders say their history work is 'often' or 'always' too easy;

•39% of 12th-graders say they rarely write about what they read in class."

The claim is also implausible on the basis of comparisons of the national
score distribution in a variety of countries on the TIMSS and PIRLS data on
achievement in mathematics, science, and reading.

[http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/T07_M_IR_Chapter1....](http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/T07_M_IR_Chapter1.pdf)

(See Exhibit 1.1 for country distributions of scores in mathematics.)

[http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/T07_S_IR_Chapter1....](http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/T07_S_IR_Chapter1.pdf)

(See Exhibit 1.1 for country distributions of scores in science, where the
United States fares somewhat better, comparatively, than in mathematics.)

<http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/PDF/P06_IR_Ch1.pdf>

(Exhibit 1.1 in this PIRLS document shows reading achievement distributions
for fourth grade, not including eighth grade data as in the two charts linked
above.)

The United States certainly has societal advantages that result in better
economic performance than could be expected from the results of its school
system. The United States is internally peaceful, stable, free

[http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-
wor...](http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012)

and noncorrupt

<http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/>

enough to attract immigration from all over the world, and several United
States immigration categories strongly favor persons who received strong
primary and secondary educations in their native countries. The "brain drain"
is a phenomenon of long standing, and helps the United States make up for what
it doesn't do for its own native-born students.

AFTER EDIT: The Hacker News management writes in the Hacker News welcome
letter about how to write a good comment:

"The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach
us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration
that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about
the topic, perhaps from personal experience."

And I just remembered, as I am about to do an activity with my son, that my
personal experience includes running an ongoing course in advanced mathematics
(prealgebra mathematics for elementary age pupils) that draws client from
throughout the native-born and immigrant community in Minnesota, a state with
strong public schools. My course location is in one of the very best school
districts in Minnesota. But parents who are American-born and graduates of
MIT, and first-generation immigrant parents from China, from India, from
Poland, from Romania, from Ghana, from Korea, from Pakistan, and from other
countries I may have forgotten sign up their children for my courses, even
though they already live in school districts that are considered good school
districts, because they know very well that American schools don't do as good
a job teaching foundational mathematics as schools in many other countries.

<http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf>

<http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf>

I learned this in Taiwan, where the school system in general does better at
lest cost than in the United States. It is the basis of my current occupation
that people living in the United States who are actually aware of the
situation in other countries seek mathematics education besides that which is
poorly provided by United States public schools.

~~~
DavidAdams
I'll chime in here to say that indeed we don't treat our brightest minds quite
well. For one, by trying to let no child be left behind, and raise average
test scores, our schools are spending most of their time trying to raise the
bottom half to the standard. Kids who can easily pass the tests are left to
languish. And I mean this literally. My son has been relegated to the corner
of the classroom to spend hours poking around in the meager classroom library
while the teacher worked intensively with the laggards. Programs for "gifted"
kids are unpopular with parents because they seem "elitist" so schools have to
go to crazy lengths to obfuscate them and make them as low-profile as
possible. You're unlikely to even hear the term "gifted" in a school nowadays.
They have to use euphemisms like Early Learning Program. Even in high schools
where it finally becomes politically workable to sort the smarter kids into AP
classes, the "best" schools use those classes and the bright students as a
factory farm of AP credits earned, which raise the rankings of their school
system, and make it easier to justify continued budget increases. So rather
than encouraging critical thinking, writing, and creativity, they're teaching
to the test.

I actually agree with many of the facts that the article lays out. I actually
don't think that there's much point in getting heartburn about the US's
standing in the ratings, because a lot of the ratings are probably useless or
easily-gamed metrics. And it's critically important for US interests that we
make it easy for the world's best and brightest to continue to immigrate. The
big problem with the article is that, as other readers point out, it's a self-
defeating argument. The reason that our poor education outcomes don't matter
is that we import the top performers from other countries? Well, it's a good
thing that we import the top performers (in a selfish way of seeing things).
But that's beside the point.

I think that one of the factors contributing to our education challenges is
that we have a large and diverse population, but we also have naive notions of
what equality means, and we too often think that correlation equals causation.
Going to college correlates with success later in life. That's because
smarter, harder-working kids tend to go to college. It does not mean that
sending dumb lazy kids to college you'll make them successful. If you send
dumb kids to college, you end up with dumb kids with no college degree and
$40,000 in student loan debt the incurred before they dropped out. I'm using
the term "dumb" to make a point, but the truth is that there's nothing wrong
with not being cut out for the academic life. In fact, if you are prepared in
childhood to be determined, hard-working, and creative, you can become a very
successful person without having ever been an academic type. I spent three
years doing carpentry, and I got to know a lot of tradespeople who did
important things, enjoyed their work, and lived comfortable middle class
lives, and sent their kids to college. But we're allergic to the idea that
people are cut out for different kinds of life purpose because some people are
more academically oriented than others.

~~~
ScottBurson
Yes, we've got to get past this "elitism" nonsense. The fact is, we all do
better when the best students are allowed to soar.

Is it really anti-elitism, or just general anti-intellectualism? We have no
problem with "elitism" in sports -- we fall all over ourselves to identify and
develop the most talented kids. Maybe I'm out of the loop since I don't have
kids, but is there anyone who argues that we should spend most of our efforts
on the unathletic and uncoordinated, and leave the high-performers to their
own devices? If they do, I sure don't hear about it; it seems quite the
opposite. So why does this argument carry the day in the academic sphere?

Side note: have you considered home-schooling?

~~~
philwelch
> We have no problem with "elitism" in sports -- we fall all over ourselves to
> identify and develop the most talented kids.

Except we don't necessarily even do that. Youth sports programs in the US
usually emphasize teamwork and winning over developing individual talent,
while the approach in European youth academies for, say, soccer is the exact
opposite.

------
rickmb
This whole flag-waving typical Techcrunch rant is based on the assumption that
education only serves to feed the economy. Profit is all that matters.

So many of America's social problems can be traced back to a lack of a decent
educational system, and if anything, this article inadvertently explains why.
If someone really thinks economic dominance is enough to keep an empire from
crumbling, I suggest some history lessons.

~~~
moistgorilla
Well put. They don't realize that a well educated population is a more
rational one. It's also one of the reasons why I am against this whole shift
in only learning things that are "immediately practical" such as math and
science (don't get me wrong, I think math and science are important but other
subjects are just as important). It's one of the reasons why I wish philosophy
and debate were mandatory courses in most schools. I don't believe making kids
memorize multiplication tables when they are in kindergarten is going to help
them, especially when they are barely able to comprehend them since they are
so cognitively underdeveloped.

In addition: From what I am noticing, the kids that go to college to study
degrees that involve dealing with unsolvable or unsolved problems are the kids
that understand and not just memorize what they are taught. The education
system downplays understanding and focuses on memorization. This obviously
comes from America's result based culture. This leads to a population of
people that can't think for themselves and only do what they are told.
Something that goes against the whole idea of democracy.

TL;DR I believe that at younger ages children should be taught how to think
rather than what to memorize.

~~~
genwin
The country's taking the opposite path. Kids start their school day with the
_Pledge of Allegiance to the Wealthy_. Ignorance is strength.

~~~
milesokeefe
What does the pledge of allegiance have to do with wealthy people?

~~~
genwin
Pledging allegiance to the flag/country encourage kids to support or fight in
for-profit wars and other nefarious gov't activities that mainly benefit the
rich. The "under God" part is advertising for religions, again profiting the
wealthy few.

------
m_ke
Basically screw 90% of the population. Let private schools educate the rich
and if they can't hold up the weight give out student visas to people who
actually got legit primary education.

I moved to the states when I was 13 and wasted 5 years in subpar new york city
schools. If not for the decent education that I received prior to moving here,
I would probably be in a similar position as a good portion of my high school
classmates. I'd be finishing up a worthless CC degree and have little hope of
getting a job that pays much above the minimum wage.

~~~
tete
I am legitimately curious. What did you do instead?

------
kalleboo
> The U.S. holds roughly 17% of the world’s International students, compared
> to 2nd-place Britain (~12%) and far more than education powerhouses, Korea,
> Switzerland, and Sweden (all below 5%).

Considering the U.S. has a population of 300 million vs. the UK's 63 million
(and Sweden's 9 million), aren't these numbers actually damning? Or are they
just saying "size matters"?

~~~
learc83
Well since the UK is so close and economically/politically connected with
other large developed countries you would expect their rate of international
students to be greater than the US all things being equal.

~~~
justincormack
I think the majority of the uk's international students are from less
developed countries. Historically they were from the countries in the Empire,
although recently there are more from Europe as our universities are better
than many other countries.

~~~
ucee054
_our universities are better_ Do we really compare better? Recommend any
references?

~~~
justincormack
Not better than all other countries in Europe, but a substantial number.

Italy's awful University system is well documented eg
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/family-
fiefdo...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/family-fiefdoms-
blamed-for-tainting-italian-universities-2089120.html)

Look at these rankings for example, the UK is right up at the top, followed by
Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and France, but many other countries are
right down the list. [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-
ranki...](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-
rankings/2011-2012/europe.html)

------
Wilya
I find the conclusion dubious.

The US compensates its bad education system by attracting external talent
through other factors ? Yeah, I agree with that. But saying "we need not to be
scared into trying to be like other countries" is a recipe for disaster on the
long term. Because it works until some other country becomes more attractive
than the US (not likely right now, but it's imaginable). And, if anything,
having a good education system will give you _more_ talent. There's no way it
will give you less, since people aren't coming for the education anyway.

~~~
tsycho
The immigrants aren't coming for the middle and high school education, they
are coming for college/graduate level education, which is top-notch in the US,
atleast in the best schools.

Combine with that the multiplier effect of significantly better economic
opportunities post-college, and its clear why immigrants are willing to jump
through hoops (one of the worst immigration systems) to come to the US.

------
michaelochurch
TL;DR summary: we're not good at educating people, but that doesn't matter
because (a) only the top few percent matter, and (b) we can import talent to
make up for domestic shortfall.

I don't agree with either of these.

Only the top quartile matter, and therefore the bottom three-fourths can
wallow in ignorance and stupidity? We _don't have universal healthcare_
because of this fucking attitude. If you have ignorant people, you end up with
an ignorant, fucked-up culture. We pay for the ignorance of average Americans
in so many ways that it infuriates me even to get into this discussion.

Secondly, I don't think we can count on being a destination country forever.
Our immigration policies are getting worse over time, while European countries
and Canada are becoming increasingly attractive. The gap is narrowing. There
was a time when the smartest in the world wanted to come to the United
States-- not necessarily New York or Silicon Valley, but even central Ohio.
Now, they're equally attracted to Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, and even
Japan (which is less xenophobic than its reputation would indicate).

I don't think the smartest and hardest-working people come to "America"
anymore. They go to star cities, industries, and companies: Wall Street,
Silicon Valley, and U.S. research academia are top-notch, and happen to be in
the U.S. People come to the U.S. because a few currently-leading locations are
here, but what does this do for the rest of the country?

Also, New York is arguably the world's best city and Silicon Valley is the
world's best suburb, but these places are also ignominously expensive. Living
in the star cities, we can easily delude ourselves into believing that we're
insulated from the decline in "flyover country", but the bare fact is that we
suffer every day (when we pay rent or make mortgage payments, the prices being
so high because it's so hard to get a high-paying job outside of a few
locations) for what has happened to the rest of the country.

American decline is real, and it's shitty, and it has everything to do with a
lack of education and culture. Hours of schooling are just a proxy measure and
not a very good one, but the lack of attention paid to education in this
country is a big fucking deal.

~~~
dantheman
We don't have universal healthcare for a variety of reasons, most of which
highly educated agree with. Many people don't seem to understand that
federalism is slower and the idea is to see what works. The problem is that
healthcare reform is not being appropriately worked on at the state level -
primarily due to huge interventions at the federal level that prevent
experimentation.

Anyway, there are tons of high paying jobs outside of NY and SF - people
choose to live there because the like the culture and the cities -- that's why
the rent is high.

~~~
michaelochurch
Rent is high in New York and Silicon Valley because the markets are warped by
regulatory corruption and the extreme illiquidity of the market. Right now,
local incomes can support those levels (just barely) but that can change, and
when it does, urban decay will set in. Urban decay starts at least a decade
before prices start to drop, because people hoard real estate rather than
selling it when the market softens.

The problem with real estate markets is that there's extreme demand
inelasticity, which means that declining conditions (reduced effective supply)
actually cause aggregate prices to go up, in the same way that a hurricane in
the Gulf drives up gas prices even though it's not a good thing.

The idea that high rents come from "desirability" is hopelessly naive. Very
rich people can live whereever they want, so the difference between a
$50-million apartment vs. a $10-million one is driven by those factors: how
old the building is, how many third-world despots and celebrities live there
there, whether it has a view of The Park. For the rest of us, the rent we pay
is dictated by scarcity conditions rooted in regulatory corruption and the
slow reaction of new housing construction to economic forces (i.e. that 10
jobs can be created faster than 10 houses)-- not "desirability". Real estate
agents want you to believe that the reason The Rent Is Too Damn High is that
New York is such an awesome place to live, but economics don't bear them out.
Supply-side disruptions and failures push up prices much more than actual
value increases or income improvements.

Regarding high-paying jobs outside of those locations, they exist but there
aren't as many as there should or could be. The near-impossibility of getting
funding for a new technology business away from the coasts is a real problem.
Venture capital is ugly and I'd really like to see us, as a society, come up
with something better, but it's the only option for a lot of companies in the
global marketplace.

As for universal healthcare, we would have had it in 1948 if the Dixiecrat
racists (who were afraid that a universal plan would require them to
desegregate the hospitals) hadn't threatened to destroy Truman by stonewalling
everything he did. Universal healthcare plans have problems-- Canada's system
is far from perfect, and the UK's NHS has some serious flaws-- but all of
those plans are leagues better than the horrendously shitty system that we
have in the U.S.

~~~
rayiner
You make an extremely good point. NYC and SF rents would not be nearly as high
if there were more supply, and there isn't more supply because the housing
market is so over-regulated. Manhattan is cramped, but outside a few places in
the UES and Financial District, it's filled with block after block of low/mid-
rise construction, mostly 80+ years old. The reason is that it's extremely
difficult to tear down this crap and build new high rises because of
regulations.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Also because of our property-tax regime. Tearing down a depreciated/ing low-
rise to put up a fresh new high-rise will cause a reassessment of your
property value, and because the building is new you'll get hit with a massive
tax increase based on your property value shooting up.

The problem being that real-estate property values are only liquidated on
selling a building, so you just end up passing the tax on to renters.

A tax on land-value or space usage tends to work better for allowing high-
value construction to be done rather than continual depreciation of a whole
city.

~~~
001sky
don't forget income tax shield --

for every $1Mn shouse shielding ^=$60K in tax

you are making 2x median wage earners pay double Tax

That's really the worse, most regressive tax right now.

------
jasonjei
I think it is the fact that we have such a ``weak" education system that
America is capable of institutions such as Google, Apple, and the whole
startup culture. Lately, this has been less and less relevant due to the
Internet (as long as you have uncensored Internet, it probably doesn't matter
which locality you're in).

Nonetheless, I don't think there is anything inherently so wrong about the US
college/university system. People outside of the US wouldn't be spending
buckets' loads of money to send their kids here. And lately, Canada seems to
be absorbing a lot of influence as a tech powerhouse.

I think it is the lack of structure and social order that allows anyone to
question any values. As long as America keeps the best and brightest from all
over the world in the country, America will stay on top.

However, the Internet has been the great equalizer. It is probable and
possible to build great companies anywhere, especially if your products are
digital.

~~~
tete
> Nonetheless, I don't think there is anything inherently so wrong about the
> US college/university system. People outside of the US wouldn't be spending
> buckets' loads of money to send their kids here.

Like MIT and Berkeley? Yep, those are said to be quite nice, but I don't know
anyone who on their own free will would go to the US for a degree there. At
leas here (Central Europe) it has the the image of being bad and expensive.

~~~
khuey
And yet 23% of MIT international students are from Europe. I think this is the
point where I should say that your anecdote doesn't replace data.

~~~
tete
Actually it appears like you misunderstood me, because what you just said
proves what I wrote, which is that there are exceptions like the MIT. However,
I know enough Americans personally to know that most universities aren't at
this level.

EDIT: Sorry, I just reread it. I really didn't point out well, that I consider
the MIT or Berkeley an exception, but saying that they are good university and
doubting anyone here would say they are not doing a great job I falsely amused
that would be clear. Yep, the MIT and Berkeley are great university and like a
lot of other people I'd love to go there, but that's not what I was talking
about and that's what I wanted to make clear mentioning them.

But also think about why elite universities have such a percentage of
foreigners.

Do you know the percentages of other universities? I am curious, because when
I think about the university I study at, which currently is in a huge mess,
because a governmental coalition we had for two periods (for the first time in
history) changed the laws regarding its financial support in a way that it was
against the constitution and therefor was killed off. Since nobody acted upon
this on time and there are now no appropriate laws and most universities are
struggling with big debts (for the first time). Still universities here are
free, still the universities here are pioneering in many fields, winning
international awards, etc. If the financial situation doesn't change (the laws
aren't fixed in what way ever) this situation is going to change, but despite
strong restrictions 22.57% (just checked on this year) of the students here
are from other countries. This is for computer science on one of the worse
universities here (I for myself am thinking about going to another state for a
better one), which isn't really the best field. Most people come here to study
medicine here. That's a famous field here. Lots of international politicians
come here for health related stuff, so I am sure the numbers there would be
different. They are also the ones that are always the first in transplanting
various organs, world records when it comes to the number of them, etc.

What I want to say is that the fact that you have one or two very famous
universities in the field of technology doesn't say your system is good. I can
study here too, research whatever I want, pioneering in various areas, get
everything I need, still I know very well how messed up our system is (and was
for at least a decade now). So I really don't think that the comment about
everyone going to the US is true, just because you have 23% Europeans at your
elite university. The reason by the way could also be that they have rich
parents coming from Europe, because as a matter of fact forty(!) percent of
Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad[1].

See, I don't want to talk bad the educational system in the US, but when a lot
of US American citizen go to Cuba, which is basically the enemy of the united
states, has huge financial problems, which due to a large part are because of
economical sanctions that would even mean the end for a country like Germany
then saying the US educational system appears to just be wrong (also see
PISA). This doesn't mean the US doesn't have some damn fine universities like
MIT, Berkeley, etc. or that many European countries are doing so much better
(I explained how really messed up the university I am going to is - even if
there are many that are off worse), but if you look to Scandinavia or Asia
then things could be _way_ better.

[1] <http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.pdf>

------
polyfractal
I know Techcrunch posted this...but why is it on HN?

This has nothing to do with technology, hacking, or really anything that is
remotely interesting.

This thread is just going to turn a giant shitfest about government vs free
market, why collegiate education is the root of all evil, etc etc. Same tired
old debates.

Flagged.

------
nancyhua
Has anyone here had a positive educational experience?

The article brings up the USA and china and although I had to supplement my
usa education (we used the same textbook for 4 years in my elementary school)
and saw that my cousins in china were learning calculus while my class was
still on extremely basic algebra, I never envied them their Chinese education
steeped in rote memorization.

My impression is other countries might test better but they have their own
problems. My cousins in China had the curiosity beaten out of them and had no
time to really understand what they were studying or pursue what really
interested them. The cutthroat testing environment really harmed them
psychologically as well. I consider myself really lucky. The first rule of
education should be "do no harm" and often that just means being more hands
off.

Many of my friends learn better on their own and at least the USA lets smart
kids do that more than many other countries do.

I have a bias in that I tend to think most problems can be solved by
technology. Maybe this whole conversation is on a problem fast becoming
obsolete due to the great equalizer: the Internet. That's my hope, anyway.
(btw the best open courseware stuff comes out of USA universities.)

------
JumpCrisscross
The article assumes that given that the U.S. thrived in the post-war
environment with a K-12 system subpar on a given set of metrics, those metrics
don't matter. It fails to acknowledge that today's environment of several
emergent, competitive countries viably aspiring for at least global
significance is very different from one where every viable competitor raced to
outdo each other in the orgy of self-destruction that bombed much of the first
world to the third.

An educated population, as measured by PISA scores, "has powerful effects on
individual earnings, on the distribution of income, and on economic growth,"
e.g. a "one country-level standard deviation equivalent to 47 test-score
points in PISA 2000 mathematics higher test performance [yielded] around one
percentage point higher annual [per capita GDP] growth rates", with broader
evidence quoted in the same paper pointing to a 1.5 to 2 percentage point
effective size. From a social perspective, test score inequality and earnings
inequality across OECD countries have a simple correlation of 0.85 [1].

The link between schooling and test scores is not 100% causal, with the
aforementioned study [1] conceding that "cognitive skills may be developed in
formal schooling, but they may also come from the family, the peers, the
culture, and so forth.". That said, the data suggests that "strong
accountability systems that accurately measure student performance; local
autonomy that allows schools to make appropriate educational choices; and
choice and competition in schools so that parents can enter into determining
the incentives that schools face" have been shown to have a significant
positive effect on the economically relevant metrics of cognitive skill. It
should be noted that there is little evidence of education expenditure per
pupil and any relevant metrics being related.

TechCrunch quotes a _Nature_ article that asserts that the “average test
scores are mostly irrelevant as a measure of economic potential".
Unsurprisingly, the original article [2] is mis-represented. Far from arguing
that we can sit on our laurels the commentary in _Nature_ argues that given
"90% of the variance in the scores is within countries rather than between
countries" we need not drill our students for hours as they do in Singapore or
India, but "should [instead look] at how our best schools educate top
performers". The argument is thus on _how_ we improve our education system
rather than _whether_ we need to.

TL;DR Just because we got to market in a jalopy for the last half century
doesn't mean a tune-up isn't in order. Even if we have a larger population
that hedges against trashing up a good portion of our human capital so long as
a lucky few succeed, an under-performing school system, hinted at by the
U.S.'s PISA scores, leaves potential growth on the table. This is unfair and
inefficient.

[1]
[https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7...](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7154/wps4122.pdf?sequence=1)

[2]
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453028a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453028a.html#an1)

~~~
learc83
> That said, the data suggests that "strong accountability systems that
> accurately measure student performance; local autonomy that allows schools
> to make appropriate educational choices; and choice and competition in
> schools so that parents can enter into determining the incentives that
> schools face" have been shown to have a significant positive effect on the
> economically relevant metrics of cognitive skill.

That's interesting because that is almost the opposite of what many of the
comments here are suggesting we change.

Mainly that we nationalize the education system.

------
Derbasti
Only caring about the top quartile (aka ignoring the majority) is dangerous,
because it has been proven that humans are not very good at judging the
relative intelligence of people more intelligent than they are.

Thus, a dumb population will elect dumb leaders who make dumb decisions. One
has to wonder if we currently see something related to that.

------
Tycho
I think everyone would agree that it's pointless to send children into a
public education system and then act like _it doesn't matter_ what the outcome
is for the majority of them. Unless you are totally indifferent to the wastage
of tax revenue.

------
MrJagil
Totally off-topic:

Shouldn't it be "countries'" with an apostrophe? To denote possession?

------
hugh4life
American schools don't lag behind other countries... American demographics lag
behind other countries.

If you break down the PISA scores by american demographic groups then you'll
see that whites do better than whites in almost every European country...
Asians better than practically every Asian country... and the same goes for
Blacks and Latinos.

~~~
TheEzEzz
Reference?

------
Uchikoma
There are some reasons for US economic power (e.g. WWII) but the main reason
is companies got larger and more successful than elsewhere because until China
it was the largest domestic market.

Successful companies attract money, money attracts people.

~~~
Jach
Don't forget the very important fact that in the US companies are _allowed_ to
get massive (modulo a few antitrust cases) and keep their profits, of which
there is no artificial limit. Both the companies and the citizens are, to a
large extent, left unmolested by the government. This is not the case
everywhere. There are many other factors as well.

~~~
Uchikoma
Granted by view is limited, but I'd assume companies are allowed to get
massive in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and elsewhere too. What these
countries lack is a large domestic market - with Japan the second largest, and
Japan the second largest economy for most of the 20th century after WWII. The
UK was large when it had the empire as a domestic market.

------
rotskoff
This article fails to specify exactly to what end "it has never mattered."
Assuming that the reasoning of the article is correct (the other comments have
sufficiently questioned this issue), it still "matters" that the U.S. public
education is subject glaring inequalities, that low-income schools often fail
to graduate the majority of their students, that income level is so positively
correlated to academic achievement, that students can be trapped in classrooms
with 40+ students with no hope of individual attention. Addressing and
reforming these problems is independent of the privilege and success of elite
students.

------
MrFoof
>The U.S. is the 6th worst in terms of high school graduation, with 23%
failing to attain a diploma

I'm surprised that the graduation rate was that high, as I was expecting the
"did not graduate rate" to be closer to 30%, not closer to 20%.

Personally, my high school only graduated 59.1% of its incoming freshman for
the class of 2000.

------
batista
Hmm, sounds more like la-la-hands-in-the-ears denial.

It's not just schools. The tide's have turned in general.

Before the 17th century Britain wasn't much. Afterwards, it was the world's
superpower (with France by the side).

Before the 20th century, the US wasn't much. After WWI, WWII especially, the
exchanged the role of superpower with Britain. Now they're falling by the
wayside too. It's not something that happens overnight, might take several
decades, but it's not like the world looks to the US as it once did anymore
(or will again: those things are not normally reversible).

~~~
justincormack
Britain started worrying about its educational decline in the 1890s
recession...

~~~
saryant
It's also worth noting that the British made a deliberate decision to _not_
challenge America's ascendency to dominance. I think it's fairly obvious how
that decision has benefited both nations.

I don't think the same can't be said about Sino-American affairs today. I
worry about that.

------
lucian303
Innovation is never the primary factor to obtain a good education for oneself.
One only learns of innovation once one has a good education.

The conclusions of this article are atrocious and frankly, appalling. When
just about all of the problems in the US and US policy abroad come because of
an uneducated populous how can one claim that this is not important?

A lot of immigrants don't really want to come here anymore and many are
leaving or planning to leave because of the conditions caused by the horrific
education in the US. It's ironic that this is one of the problems that we have
it in our power to fix, yet one of the things that keeps the status quo thus
removed from politicians' agendas.

