The Dumbing Down of the US

[NM11046]

Interesting read that explains why we are where we are today and how that compares against other countries ... we're in trouble.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

There is a lot in the article I agree with. But, this quote leaves me scratching my head.

 

After leading the world for decades in 25-34 year olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly 50% of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are foreigners, most of whom are returning to their home countries;

 

If our education is so bad compared to other countries, why are so many foreigners coming here to be educated?

[knapplc]

There is a lot in the article I agree with. But, this quote leaves me scratching my head.

 

After leading the world for decades in 25-34 year olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly 50% of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are foreigners, most of whom are returning to their home countries;

 

If our education is so bad compared to other countries, why are so many foreigners coming here to be educated?

 

 

For the same reason a person who didn't get into Harvard will go to Brown. Maybe the US school is their safety school. Maybe they got a better economic deal in America. Maybe they want to do business with America and come here to learn the language or make contacts.

 

There are a lot of reasons for students to come here, not all of which means that our schools are good.

[Moiraine]

There is a lot in the article I agree with. But, this quote leaves me scratching my head.

 

After leading the world for decades in 25-34 year olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly 50% of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are foreigners, most of whom are returning to their home countries;

 

If our education is so bad compared to other countries, why are so many foreigners coming here to be educated?

Can't read article yet but that paragraph was pretty vague. My guess and it's only a guess is we're lagging behind with undergrad courses, teaching and students but our postgrad is still good which is why foreigners are coming here for it.

 

It makes sense though. Almost anyone can get into UNL. In a place like China you have to be SMART to go to University. It doesn't necessarily mean our smart people are dumber.

[zoogs]

America has the finest research universities in the world. When people talk about the American education system, they should not be knocking the quality of our higher learning institutions. I don't think China's education system even begins to beg for consideration as a worthy model, by the way.

 

The fact that we boast Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and the like, though, doesn't mean there isn't a point to concern about anti-intellectualism. We're still a country where policymakers wrestle over how much evolution denial they can get away with implementing in our high schools.

 

Is it a bad thing for so many (I'm curious in a citation for that number. 50% seems pretty high) STEM graduate students to be foreigners? I'd say it's merely indicative of the strengths of American research institutions that everybody wants to come here. Part of the reason why people return to their home countries, by the way, is we don't necessarily encourage them to stay.

 

This article deals quite a bit in generalities, but I suppose it's also the kind of of article that would be put out by a site like this. Their most popular articles also include "How to Know If You Are A Good Person", "5 Signs That It's Time to Quit Your Job", some probably vacuous raving about millennials, and other forms of low-hanging fruit. It's hard to be a media company these days, hey?

[BigRedBuster]

America has the finest research universities in the world. When people talk about the American education system, they should not be knocking the quality of our higher learning institutions. I don't think China's education system even begins to beg for consideration as a worthy model, by the way.

 

The fact that we boast Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and the like, though, doesn't mean there isn't a point to concern about anti-intellectualism. We're still a country where policymakers wrestle over how much evolution denial they can get away with implementing in our high schools.

 

Is it a bad thing for so many (I'm curious in a citation for that number. 50% seems pretty high) STEM graduate students to be foreigners? I'd say it's merely indicative of the strengths of American research institutions that everybody wants to come here. Part of the reason why people return to their home countries, by the way, is we don't necessarily encourage them to stay.

 

This article deals quite a bit in generalities, but I suppose it's also the kind of of article that would be put out by a site like this. Their most popular articles also include "How to Know If You Are A Good Person", "5 Signs That It's Time to Quit Your Job", some probably vacuous raving about millennials, and other forms of low-hanging fruit. It's hard to be a media company these days, hey?

That was basically the point of my post.

[Cdog923]

This ties into my opinion that primary schools (elementary through HS) have turned into nothing more than large-scale babysitting operations rather than places of learning.

[zoogs]

We have some very strong HS programs in the US, as well. On the flip side, there's a wide range in how much different school districts spend (and are able to spend) on students.

 

I don't know if it's too much that we think of them as babysitting centers. I think it's more that a lot of communities are allowed to resist the investment in education that other (more affluent?) areas are quite happy to spend. There's also not infinite resources, of course, so to an extent it's a distribution issue as well.

[BigRedBuster]

We have some very strong HS programs in the US, as well. On the flip side, there's a wide range in how much different school districts spend (and are able to spend) on students.

 

I don't know if it's too much that we think of them as babysitting centers. I think it's more that a lot of communities are allowed to resist the investment in education that other (more affluent?) areas are quite happy to spend. There's also not infinite resources, of course, so to an extent it's a distribution issue as well.

If you have a community that supports the school with families who instill education as important....then yes, spending more will improve education.

However, there are lots of school districts where one heck of a lot of money is pumped in but the community around it sucks so bad that the education still sucks and pumping millions more in isn't going to make a big difference.

 

No, that statement doesn't mean I'm against spending more on education. But, let's be honest about what those results are going to be. Until a student's family life instills the idea that education is important and so go work hard and get good grades to improve your life....well....that kid's chances of improving his education is pretty slim.

 

I think it's also pretty meaningless to look at what we spent per student 50 years ago and compare it to now. 50 years ago, we didn't have the technology that's needed in schools to really prepare the student for what is expected of them in the work place once they are out. That technology is expensive.

 

Now, personally, I think our school systems are doing a pretty dang good job with some obvious major exceptions that need improving. My kids go to public schools and they have received a very good education that has allowed them to go to college and succeed. Our school also is improving on the vocational education for people who are not going to go to a 4 year college.

[cm husker]

America is not dumber today, but the dumbness is certainly on "better" display.

 

That said, I believe that if you spoke to a sample 100 "blue collar" workers from the 50s and a sample of 100 "blue collar" workers from today, the typical worker today would be better informed (and just as sophisticated) as their 1950s counterparts. I think the same holds up for most white collar workers too. It's just with the benefit of limited hindsight that we perceive past people to be so much more sophisticated and educated.

 

I have a hard time with these broad brush articles and conclusions, especially one that draws its conclusions based on luddite statements like "video killing print = the death of intellectualism."

 

 

I actually find this article to be anti-intellectual in itself, because when you get past the typical tropes that religious, jocks and cheerleaders are stupid, it applies no rigor in its examination of stats it throws out in support of its views.

 

For example, this paragraph:

 

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities report on education shows that the U.S. ranks second among all nations in the proportion of the population aged 35-64 with a college degree, but 19th in the percentage of those aged 25-34 with an associate or high school diploma, which means that for the first time, the educational attainment of young people will be lower than their parents

 

 

 

 

There's actually no evidence in that paragraph that kids are attaining less education than their parents. It's actually more likely that the opposite is true, which I suspect is the reason that he didn't include the actual numbers reflecting % changes by individual country or the more direct evidence that kids are gaining less education on average than their parents. What is more likely the driver in this conflated math is that (a) as other, smaller, countries catch up to the US in development, they have increased their %'s more quickly, therefore pushing the US down the ranks, and (b) it doesn't equally account for immigration and the number of person in the US who have come to the states with less than associate degrees from their home countries.

 

Further, when you dig into the numbers, it's becomes more clear that a decline in rankings by the US is expected (and inevitable) compared to small nations that only allow certain students to attend school. That's a component of why so many foreign students in the "middle echelon" of education come here. What the article also fails to account for is that a % of the increases in other nations are attributable to US colleges educating their populous.

 

I have a significant problem with the "only 3% of the US citizens surveyed pass the civics test for citizenship" being used as evidence of anti-intellectualism. My response is, no kidding, mot of them probably haven't been studying obscure historical facts in preparation for it, unlike the typical person seeking citizenship. It's smart for people to brain dump information that's not useful to them in their daily lives. I'd rather someone forget who drafted the declaration of independence than how to do some function at their job. A more meaningful comparison would be a survey of HS students just leaving civics class.

 

The simple fact is, it's not realistic to expect 300+ Harvard/Princeton/[iNSERT TOP STATE SCHOOL LIKE CAL] level colleges available to students in the US, let alone to push out students with that level of education. But if our stated (and invested) goal is to educate as many people as possible, then it's inevitable that our bottom half of a much larger pool will pull down our rankings compare to a small foreign pool only filled with the best of their best.

[JJ Husker]

I don't think that article is a referendum on our education system at all but rather an indicator of societal trends and other factors.

A drop in our rank of 25-34 year olds who have acquired university degrees only indicates to me that less people are seeking or acquiring these degrees. It does not indicate that the quality of education available has necessarily declined. I think they are right to blame anti-intellectualism, politics, social media and the like for reasons why fewer are obtaining degrees. It's not that the quality of available education is any less, it's because simply more people are dumber or not inclined or capable of securing those degrees. Some of it is likely due to economic reasons where in more cases it doesn't seem to make sense for people to spend ungodly amounts of money on higher education to still end up in a lower skilled/knowledge job, Also much of it seems to stem from this focus of getting everyone through high school with a diploma. Some kids, for various reasons (parenting, socioeconomic, etc.) just aren't destined for college or even traditional high school education. I think many kids would be much more successful focusing on vocations, trades etc. rather than the more traditional higher education track. Much of it is not that kids are dumber but that the system tries too hard to be a one size fits all approach. And it does seem that more kids are being passed through high school without ever really earning that diploma. It makes the school look bad when they don't graduate enough kids but how do you teach somebody that doesn't want to learn? The answer is you pass 'em on through.

 

My daughter's high school is a good example. It seems that it is nothing more than babysitting for a majority of the kids there but they also offer about 30 AP classes and numerous advanced or honors classes. Both of our kids have gone there and I have been extremely impressed with the teachers and quality of education. Of course both of our kids happen to be very bright and good students (with parents who will kick them in the ass if they slack off) who want to actually learn something. Not coincidentally, I have been less impressed with many of their teachers and classes that were not of an accelerated nature. In those classes the teachers have more behavioral problems and have to dumb it down to allow for remedial success for the kids who don't really want to be there. Both of our kids absolutely hated most of the few classes they had to take that included the "general population" of the school. A high percentage of the kids (I won't call them students) in those lower level classes have no interest in learning and are nothing more than a distraction for the students who want to be there and want to learn. That is not a fault of the education system.

[JJ Husker]

 

We have some very strong HS programs in the US, as well. On the flip side, there's a wide range in how much different school districts spend (and are able to spend) on students.

 

I don't know if it's too much that we think of them as babysitting centers. I think it's more that a lot of communities are allowed to resist the investment in education that other (more affluent?) areas are quite happy to spend. There's also not infinite resources, of course, so to an extent it's a distribution issue as well.

If you have a community that supports the school with families who instill education as important....then yes, spending more will improve education.

However, there are lots of school districts where one heck of a lot of money is pumped in but the community around it sucks so bad that the education still sucks and pumping millions more in isn't going to make a big difference.

 

No, that statement doesn't mean I'm against spending more on education. But, let's be honest about what those results are going to be. Until a student's family life instills the idea that education is important and so go work hard and get good grades to improve your life....well....that kid's chances of improving his education is pretty slim.

 

I think it's also pretty meaningless to look at what we spent per student 50 years ago and compare it to now. 50 years ago, we didn't have the technology that's needed in schools to really prepare the student for what is expected of them in the work place once they are out. That technology is expensive.

 

Now, personally, I think our school systems are doing a pretty dang good job with some obvious major exceptions that need improving. My kids go to public schools and they have received a very good education that has allowed them to go to college and succeed. Our school also is improving on the vocational education for people who are not going to go to a 4 year college.

 

Agree 100%. Money is not the answer so many like to think it is.

I'll use my daughter's HS as an example again. It is a relatively "poor" school economically. I think about 65% of the kids are on the free/reduced lunch program. It also has about 65% minority enrollment (35% white)-not necessarily the same 65% btw. Plus our community has been very resistant to approve any tax increases, particularly ones intended for education. Our school district is not rated very high in the state. But I will tell you absolutely 100% more funding would not make a bit of difference with the kids they have to work with. We think it is a wonderful school and selected it outside of our normal school boundary because of the teachers and AP programs they offer. There is a relatively new high school on our side of town, in an area that is much better off economically and we elected to open enroll in the older, low income school across town because of the higher quality of education available there. Our kids school has the highest number of Boettcher scholars in the state and more AP and advanced offerings than most but the school and district itself don't look good judged by overall student performance. I have seen tons of money pumped into many schools in our district for various reasons/programs and it simply does no good. They may as well have lit it on fire for all the good it does. At the end of the day, what matters the most is the raw material they have to work with. Home life, parenting, students that actually want to learn... Throwing money at schools does not solve those fundamental problems.

[cm husker]

A drop in our ranking doesn't necessarily mean that fewer people are seeking a degree (though, I wouldn't blame them for making that decision rationally).

 

It may simply mean that our % growth is slower than others. Or that we've had a surge in population in that age group, so while total grad numbers are up, percentages may drop.

[huKSer]

 

We have some very strong HS programs in the US, as well. On the flip side, there's a wide range in how much different school districts spend (and are able to spend) on students.

 

I don't know if it's too much that we think of them as babysitting centers. I think it's more that a lot of communities are allowed to resist the investment in education that other (more affluent?) areas are quite happy to spend. There's also not infinite resources, of course, so to an extent it's a distribution issue as well.

If you have a community that supports the school with families who instill education as important....then yes, spending more will improve education.

However, there are lots of school districts where one heck of a lot of money is pumped in but the community around it sucks so bad that the education still sucks and pumping millions more in isn't going to make a big difference.

 

No, that statement doesn't mean I'm against spending more on education. But, let's be honest about what those results are going to be. Until a student's family life instills the idea that education is important and so go work hard and get good grades to improve your life....well....that kid's chances of improving his education is pretty slim.

 

I think it's also pretty meaningless to look at what we spent per student 50 years ago and compare it to now. 50 years ago, we didn't have the technology that's needed in schools to really prepare the student for what is expected of them in the work place once they are out. That technology is expensive.

 

Now, personally, I think our school systems are doing a pretty dang good job with some obvious major exceptions that need improving. My kids go to public schools and they have received a very good education that has allowed them to go to college and succeed. Our school also is improving on the vocational education for people who are not going to go to a 4 year college.

 

And today there are many expensive programs that are mandated, usually unfunded. And these programs need an administrator to run them and they are pricey.

 

For example - special needs students. The severely disabled were "warehoused" - now they are included in the school environment needing teacher aides to meet their needs. The law requires paras for students with IEPs and sometimes with 504s - there were no such things many years ago.

[JJ Husker]

I should probably clarify what I said about money not being the answer. Of course having enough funding is a necessity. My comments assumed that teacher compensation, resources and technology were sufficient and that mandated programs were funded. I'm sure that may not be the case in some situations. But as far as throwing more and more money at supposedly underperforming schools, I sure haven't seen where that helps. Too much of the result is dependent upon things that more money simply won't fix.