
U.S. Workers Show Little Improvement in 21st Century Skills - hhs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-15/u-s-workers-show-little-improvement-in-21st-century-skills
======
keeganjw
What bugs me about this is reading the comments. Instead reading this news and
thinking that when large swathes of the population are doing poorly there must
be something wrong with the system, they turn around and just blame people for
being stupid and lazy. There are tons of people in this country that grow up
poor, in bad neighborhoods, with bad schools, and no hope of going to college
and when things don't turn out well for them, we blame them for it. It may
come as a shock to people from other countries but in the US school funding is
extremely local. If you're from a rich neighborhood, your school has tons of
money and resources. If you grow up in a poor neighborhood, some barely have
enough money to keep the roof from leaking. And we've all just accepted this
as normal and OK. We have the power to change this but we choose not to.

~~~
xeromal
Disclaimer: 100% conjecture and opinion.

I understand where you're coming from and I'm going to leave an unpopular
opinion as a comment, but I think the society we're growing into one that
wants to absolve anyone of personal responsibility. I understand that growing
up in poor neighborhoods and shitty family situations makes it immensely more
difficult to set yourself up for success, but I just think at some point
you're responsible for your own person, not anyone else and not society.

I grew up in methland, appalachia and had countless crackhead friends and
family. I didn't have any money and had to work starting at age 15. I think
I'd be in my right to complain and want education to be fixed and my city to
be improved so it'd be easy for me to be more successful.

I took an alternative and left home, educated myself, and turned myself into a
halfway decent contributor to society. I really think the US still has a lot
of ability to reward those who go after it even if that means becoming a
carpenter and saving for 30 years to retire early.

I understand our society is not ideal, but I just think those problems are
going to take generations to fix. Why not take care of yourself and do your
best to fix your own shit.

As a disclaimer, I'm not writing this towards disabled people or others that
need society's help. I'm 100% ok with helping in those situations. I'm talking
about the average american who has their health and some direction over their
destiny.

I just don't get why people sit on their asses and complain instead of getting
out and making shit happen or at least trying to. I don't get the barely
getting by mentality.

~~~
ouid
It feels like you have no understanding of the underlying problem, honestly.
There is a saying that everyone has heard that goes, If you are trying to
outrun a bear, you don't have to be faster than the bear, you only have to be
faster than your friend.

The bear, in this analogy, is the problem. It is society's problem. And the
solution you propose for society is for everyone to run faster, but no one can
run faster than a bear.

Maybe it is time instead to deal with the bear.

~~~
pb7
I think you’re giving the commenter you’re responding to too hard of a time.
From what I understand, all he’s saying is let’s tackle two problems at the
same time. Let’s address the systemic problem but since that naturally takes a
long time, let’s also work on personal accountability and meet at the
“perfect” end where we excel at both. I agree with his/her take that it seems
that with each passing generation, there seems to be less and less
independence in addressing personal issues (even if they stem from systemic
issues). At the end of the day, whether society helps or not, you are the only
person that cares about your wellbeing the most. Let’s just do both
simultaneously is all I’m saying.

------
ksdale
My wife and I are in the early stages of homeschooling our kids and one thing
I've noticed in all my reading about education is that there seems to be one
side that argues for more job training in school, and there's another side
that argues that a well-rounded life includes much more than just job skills,
and then there are articles like these, that seem to indicate that a ton of
people are making it through the education system without learning anything at
all. That seems like a much bigger problem than what should be on the
curriculum, but it doesn't seem to be much talked about.

On the professional side of things, I've come to expect that most 18 year olds
won't know anything about anything, which is fine, 18 is quite young, after
all, but it seems at odds with the tremendous amount of time and money that's
been spent on the average 18 year old's education.

~~~
WhompingWindows
"18 year olds don't know anything about anything"

Come now, that is blatant overstatement. When I was 18, I knew how to read,
write, do calculus, use Microsoft Office, do a bit of coding, and even enough
to work in a biological research lab.

The problem is most skills needed in the economy are not aligned with the
skills taught in school. Is it necessary that a plumber can read Shakespeare
and analyze it? Is it necessary that a nurse knows all about the Civil War?
Well no, in a purely skills-based sense, their schooling was "not valuable"
and they "don't know anything".

~~~
ksdale
I said most, not all, and do you consider yourself average? I would consider
an 18 year old with your skills to be rather exceptional. And 18 year olds
like you were tend to go off to college and not enter the workforce right
away, anyway.

And your last paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about, we argue about
whether a plumber needs to know Shakespeare or whether a nurse needs to know
about the Civil War, as if they know those things but would be better served
with other, more practical knowledge, but, in my experience, basically nobody
knows about those things, anyway, beyond a few cursory facts. Meanwhile,
apparently a huge number of people can't do basic math.

As an aside, the kind of people I know who do know a lot about Shakespeare or
the Civil War are the kind of people who would have learned it whether or not
it was a subject in school.

------
qntty
Note that this research was done in 2017. You can see the press release here:

[https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp)

Sample questions from the test are available here:

[https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_lit.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_lit.asp)

[https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_num.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_num.asp)

[https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_pstre.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_pstre.asp)

[https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_reading.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/sample_reading.asp)

------
commandlinefan
One thing I’ve noticed is that as more things “advance”, there’s more that
you’re supposed to already know - and an expectation (especially among people
who themselves don’t really understand it) that it should somehow take _less_
time to get up to speed than it took in the past. Take machine learning, for
example. You can work through a tensor flow tutorial in a day and understand
how to use tensor flow to solve the problem in the tutorial or another problem
close to it. If you actually want to understand how machine learning works -
when it does or doesn’t apply, how to make it efficient enough to be usable,
how to figure out where it went wrong when it does go wrong - you need to
actually understand the statistics that’s behind it and the calculus that’s
behind _that_. And that can take months or years, just to learn what you’re
already “supposed” to know. I’m picking on machine learning, but I see this
everywhere: I work with people who struggle to get Hibernate working because
they don’t understand SQL joins, and they don’t have the time to go back and
pick up “the basics” or people who can’t get Angular to work right because
they don’t understand Javascript closures. As technology is made “simpler” it
actually takes _longer_ to master while everybody on the outside looking in
expects it to be easier to learn than before.

------
jays
It's because the average American doesn't value education like they once use
to. American's IMO value entertainment far more.

We're living in a time when information and the ability to gain skills is
easier than ever. Google, YouTube, Public Libraries, etc. It's all there,
available for anyone. But American's have it in the their mind that the only
way to gain skills is by going to a school and sitting in a classroom.
Perhaps, the institution is to blame for that?

Until Americans start realizing that education and being a lifetime learner is
one of the most critical aspects of an economy, I'm afraid we won't see much
in terms of improvements.

~~~
LeftHandPath
There's a mix of both. There are hardworking Americans - usually first- and
second-generation immigrants and the older, wealthier families - that value
education and hard work. And then there is the middle class, who was raised on
entertainment, music, and media that romanticized apathy and disdain for
education and the workplace. And there is the lower class, which has enough of
its own struggles that I don't want to try to summarize their problems in just
a sentence or two.

Either way, I do think that platforms like YouTube and Instagram give lots of
influence to entrepreneurs - enough that Shark Tank started labeling some
contestants as 'wanntrepreneurs' (wannabes) - and that the perceived value of
self-driven diligence and the desire for intellect might become popular again.
Actually, I think they already are starting to be popular again, especially
among younger people.

> But American's have it in the their mind that the only way to gain skills is
> by going to a school and sitting in a classroom.

Ivory towers will come crumbling down in time.

~~~
jays
> and that the perceived value of self-driven diligence and the desire for
> intellect might become popular again. Actually, I think they already are
> starting to be popular again, especially among younger people.

I hope you're right :) Good points overall.

> Ivory towers will come crumbling down in time.

No doubt. We can't continue on the path we're currently on. It's not
sustainable.

------
phenkdo
This might be an unpopular thing to say on this forum, but it needs to be
said: 1\. The average US worker is entitled and arrogant. The "everything is
belong to me" attitude is rampant. 2\. "There is no shortage if you pay
enough" argument - especially in high-tech - is a bunch of BS. You could be
paying 200-250K salaries and still you end up with bunch of incompetents.

~~~
arcticbull
IMO that's more of a symptom than it is a cause.

Re 1: Mid-western/"fly-over" state folks have been hit by large amounts of
change in the last few decades. The "white working class" (especially male)
was overthrown by globalization, immigration, by a renewed push for women's
rights, LGBTQ rights and so-on. Wages went down, social rank went down and
opportunities dwindled. No training programs, no social programs, no
healthcare, nothing.

This has led to a reactionary position of "returning to the good old days" of
manufacturing, of mining, and conservative ideologies. To when they could
pursue the American dream. I think it can come across the way you describe but
it's driven more by fear and lack of opportunity than by some intrinsic
arrogance characteristic.

These are the folks who were left behind by the Democrats in 2016. The status
quo genuinely wasn't working for them. Not that the alternative was better,
but it was an alternative to a system that wasn't working and from their
perspective they had nothing to lose. That's why we find ourselves where we
do.

Re 2: "There is no shortage if you pay enough" has more to do with the zero
marginal cost business models that yield staggering quantities of revenue and
profit per worker. Apple makes ~$40B per year in net profit off of 123,000
employees. That means could give each of them (including FTE geniuses and
sales people) a $350,000 per year _raise_ and still break even. There's tons
of head-room here.

~~~
nightski
HN has such an absurd view of the Midwest. I live in the Midwest. We have a
large MS campus here along with quite a few smaller tech companies. The main
economic drivers here are tech, agriculture, and oil (not manufacturing,
mining, or conservative ideologies whatever that means). My group of friends
averages in the 150-250k range of income which is high for the area for sure
but it's evidence of the thriving technology scene. It's also low compared to
the farmers around here which do quite well in good years. Nothing in your
description comes close to accurately describing our small city in the
Midwest.

~~~
dvtrn
_HN has such an absurd view of the Midwest._

It's not just HN, I keep reading _many_ opinions and thinkpieces that
reference "the situation in the midwest" when trying to talk about jobs, job
markets and localized economies that are often frustratingly and annoyingly
WELL off the mark.

I share your frustration.

Signed,

Northern Indiana

~~~
SauciestGNU
I live in Michigan and I've spent a bit of time in northern Indiana. My
observation is that it was one of the most impoverished, destitute, and
hopeless places I've ever visited, and I've also spent considerable time in
sub-Saharan Africa.

I've never lived there though, so I'm curious to hear how far off the mark you
consider me to be.

~~~
dvtrn
Allow me to be a bit self-deprecating on behalf of my fellow Hoosiers here:
I'm from Indianapolis, originally. We have a rule about going into "other"
Indiana:

Don't.

More seriously, no you're not really that far off. Most of the wealth
concentrated in NWI specifically exists to and from Chicago. In this case,
_not_ speaking for anyone else by me and my own experiences: I have many
friends who live in towns like Hammond, but with the exception of groceries
and utilities spend a lot of their time (and money) over in IL (these are the
well to do types, I should clarify). My job is in Chicago. Personally I'd be
curious to see if anyone's ever done the numbers on how towns like Merrilville
and Hammond are doing fiscally against how many residents hold full-time jobs
in the second city.

Brain drain is a real thing too, if kiddo isn't going to ND, IU Northwest or
State (or even traveling down to Bloomington or Lafayette), they're probably
heading up 55 to Chicago and going to one of the many schools up there. And
not returning because...well, there's not much here, big wheel in the sky
keeps on turning.

All that said: Housing is affordable. Indianapolis is slowly transforming into
something really interesting. Have fun getting there with these roads but..

~~~
SauciestGNU
Thanks for the response. I almost went to IU in Bloomington for grad school,
and I still love the town. The Runcible Spoon is still top 5 breakfasts I've
ever had. But outside of there, and maybe Indianapolis, the state just seems
forgotten by time.

~~~
dvtrn
_The Runcible Spoon_

I'm an IU grad myself and 100% agree it's still one of my favorite breakfast
spots; I'll be down there for the holidays and it's definitely on the list.

------
credit_guy
What a negative spin on a pretty neutral result. Here's the actual link [1].
The latest results are for 2017 and the prior ones for 2012/14\. The
government's conclusion is:

"Between 2012/14 and 2017, there were no statistically significant changes in
the percentages of adults performing at each proficiency level in any of the
three PIAAC domains"

So, how can you spin "no statistically significant changes" into something
more click-friendly? You say U.S. workers show little improvement. Nevermind
that this was in no way restricted to "workers"; the survey covers all adults
ages 16 to 65, in a representative fashion.

How's the US compared to the rest of world? Here's the relevant documents: [2]
for 2012/14 and [3] for 2019. Note that the format is slightly different, the
first doc contains only OECD countries, while the second some more countries.

* literacy. before: the US well below OECD average, just below England and Germany and above Poland and France. Now: the US slightly above average, still just below England and Germany, and just above Poland, but well above France

* numeracy. before: well below average, only Italy and Spain worse than the US. Now: exactly the same.

* computer numeracy. before: a notch below average, wedged between Japan and Korea. Now: well above average, well above both Korea and Japan.

So, overall, either neutral (numeracy), or slight improvement (literacy) or
substantial improvements (computers).

Should I dare to conclude that the most improvement the US workers have shown
was in the area most relevant for 21st century?

[1]
[https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp](https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp)

[2]
[http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20United...](http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20United%20States.pdf)

[3]
[https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/publications/countryspecif...](https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/publications/countryspecificmaterial/PIAAC_Country_Note_USA.pdf)

------
non-entity
> Americans struggle with the most basic of math skills,” NCES Associate
> Commissioner Peggy Carr said in a statement. “We need to better equip
> Americans with the numeracy skills that they need for success, starting in
> middle and high school.”

I can resonate with this. After starting sken projects that were going to
require more CS knowledge than I have, I found in a rabbit hole completely
ignorant of most things. Even simple things like doing division by hand and
multivariable equations? I had completely forgotten hownto do. I was never
particularly fond of math in school. Not sure why tbh, whenever I would get
stuck on something the teacher was unable to explain things in a way I couldnt
understand. I dont think I was stupid, hell throughout middle and high school
I started programming andn hacking stuff, often finding ways out of classes to
go do that instead. But by the time I was in HS, I found myself ending up in
pre-calculus and calculus classes (ended up picking thats over stays because
colleges would prefer it for any engineering discipline). And do to a mix of
teachers who would generally pass anyone + technology ready available for me
to plug in the problem in. I was constantly digesting articles that claimed
this stuff would never be of use to me, that traditional education was useless
for programmers and that of could slap together CRUD apps would be hired for
six figures easily. I ended up deciding I wasnt going to bother with college
as it was useless (in retrospect theres a lot of mixed truth to all that and I
really wish I had gone to school)

And of course fast forward and I dont hardly remember simple algebra, and
could flat out tell you nothing about trig, or calc. It sucks, but I dont have
time to relearn all that now.

------
pram
Anecdote: In high school (2004) I got a CCNA after a year of networking
classes. That was pretty useful. Or would have been, had I not been into Linux
as a hobby already. I’ve been in IT since then but ended up never touching a
switch or router in my entire professional life.

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/AZfPcW](https://outline.com/AZfPcW)

------
gscott
The real challenge is that it is nearly impossible to get hired for work even
when you are qualified for it.

~~~
have_faith
Part of the problem I have noticed is people being brought up with the idea
that a qualification is what is required to get a job when reality is usually
far from the truth. It certainly might get you into the door more often that
someone without but a common mindset is if I tick the qualifications boxes I
will be given a job.

Tangentially related, this effects wage equality dissuasions as people get
into the habit of comparing wages based on title and qualifications as opposed
to value added to the company from your work. Some roles this happens to work
ok for, but for lots of roles it just makes no sense, developers being a prime
example.

~~~
non-entity
So what's the alternative? Kmowing the right people? That seems 100x harder
than than getting qualifications sometimes.

~~~
have_faith
The alternative is learning what value you add to a company, what others are
earning while providing similar value and learning how to communicate that
value proposition effectively. These skills are much harder to learn than
getting a qualification because they are subtle and not taught at school.
Schools teach you how to get qualifications.

Knowing the right people is the same as having a qualification, it's a stat
boost.

