# Quality of European education vs. American education



## PianoMan

What do you think about the quality of European education over that of American education, especially on their emphasis of language learning?


----------



## Bienvenidos

I'm sorry to say this--and it may be a little exaggerated--but any education is better than an American education. We don't look at things globally. We are falling behind. The top jobs are going out to foreigners because American's aren't prepared and they'd rather go out and party then sit down and learn Japanese. It's kind of ridiculous, and I hate to say it. I'm so upset with public schooling in the United States because there is absolutely no emphasis on language learning and also science. We need to do something. Not all students are motivated to help make the United States a global power because right now we're not. We may have a powerful military but we don't have a powerful workforce. Of course, I'm not scrutinizing every single American, this is just a general trend in American history. So let's hope our generation can overcome it, because we need to if we want to keep jobs here in the US.


----------



## Shauneyzboyz

In the general scheme of things, American Education is actually very good.  However, I feel that we fall behind globally.  The general American mindset thinks inward, and I think that our education system does the same.

Truth is, we offer good education, but not nearly as good as it could be or should be.


----------



## cuchuflete

PianoMan said:


> What do you think about the quality of European education over that of American education, especially on their emphasis of language learning?



It would be nice if you were to specify which aspects of education you are speaking about, other than emphasis on language learning.  Europe is a big place, with hundreds of millions of residents.  Are you looking for a generalized answer that groups all European education and assumes uniformity?

It's obvious that most European educational systems require foreign language study, while most US school districts do not.
Other than re-stating that well known fact, what would you like to discuss, the reasons, the effects, or both?


----------



## ireney

a) I'm afraid that there's no such thing as "European" education. Different countries,different educational systems (and that's keeping it "vague").

b) education is a HUGE issue. We're talking about textbooks, teachers, educational system, examination system, progress through i.e. high-school, qualification for entering in a Universtity, how easy it is to finish said University and guess what, that's keeping it "vague"


----------



## John-Paul

First off I would like to state that this is no contest because there is no single playing field. The American school system is the most important tool to create a unified nation. It's also the only publice arena where there is a very high level (still far from perfect) of equality when it comes to gender and race. European schools were not created to build citizenship. It's kind of silly when Bush says he wants to spread freedom by force, but I do support the way the schoolsystem is teaching  the nation's children the importance of freedom and democracy. I'm not a big fan of the pledge and the antem every morning, but I like rigid separation of church and state. The problem here in the US is that schools are paid for by the local communities. Poor schooldistricts therefor have less graduates than the rich districts. But does that mean the system is bad? I don't know. The positive aspect is that as a tax payer you're really close to the decision making process. The negative is that there are people who refuse to pay more taxes in order to improve the school (better facilities, higher pay etc.). Another difference is that schools in the US are paying for special education. If a child has a disability the school has to be outfitted to help that child go to school. In our schooldistrict these costs go up to more than $100.000 per child per year (full time nurse, transport etc.).  Most European countries have special schools for these 'special' children. 
Both sides have serious flaws, let's use this thread to find out what these flaws are and maybe do something about it.


----------



## PianoMan

cuchuflete said:


> It would be nice if you were to specify which aspects of education you are speaking about, other than emphasis on language learning. Europe is a big place, with hundreds of millions of residents. Are you looking for a generalized answer that groups all European education and assumes uniformity?
> 
> It's obvious that most European educational systems require foreign language study, while most US school districts do not.
> Other than re-stating that well known fact, what would you like to discuss, the reasons, the effects, or both?


 
I'm mostly just focusing on the general importance European societ has placed on education in comparison with that of how valued and encouraged it is in American society, consequently how good the school systems are because of the amount of emphasis. I'm not looking so much for an actual effect, moreso just the general opinion of the current situation and possibly what an individual can do to overcome the lack of opportinuty given by the American public school system. 

Thank you for your responses, and I'd have to agree with your opinions that we ARE falling behind globally. I was afraid when I originally started this thread that using the term "Europe" was too vague, what I specifically meant as prominent EU countries with good economies and stable infrastuctures: UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium (just to name a few, there's plenty more) places like those who from what I've heard by many foreign students, contribute a lot more to education and more importantly the quality of it.


----------



## maxiogee

I have no way of comparing the total education package of other countries as I only have 'in-depth' knowledge of the Irish education system. I've met people from other countries, but how can I judge how representative they are of the output of the systems through which they passed.

My son went to the same secondary school I did - but with a difference of about 35 years.
I don't believe the school has lowered or raised its standards in the meantime - changes are due to the national curriculum being radically modified.
He can speak well, but his written English is dreadful.
His mathematical skills are better than mine, but that woudln't have been difficult, all my siblings were poor at maths.
His language skills are not good - six years of French have left him with what I would term not-even-schoolboy levels.
History and Geography are probably on a par with my awareness at his age, but with a different focus, as times have changed.

Overall he is much more internationally aware than I was, but then Ireland is a much more internationally aware country than it was in my day. There comes a point when it is difficult to determine what is down to the system and what is down to media consumption.

What did strike me was that one of his college tutors told the class that they would lose 0.5% for each spelliing and grammatical error on a recent major project they had to do in teams. I emphasise the team thing because two or three heads are meant to be better than one, and should be less prone to error. She later informed the class that she had been forced to revise the penalty to 0.1% - or several groups would have had no marks at all.
That I find stunning. These guys are in their third year of college. a combined 13 or 14 years' worth of education and they cannot write their own language well enough to meet a college tutor's requirements. They are not studying English - and I don't imagine she was being particularly stringent. This is a "Business" course they're on.


----------



## roxcyn

Cultures are very different.  For example, in the European Union, each country has their own language---there are many many countries.  Language becomes important so that everyone can communicate.  English is the current "lingua franca" so many people choose to study that, and many other languages.  In the USA, each state does not speak a different language---there is a common language.  Students do not like to learn a language because they may not be interested.  The classes focus on many grammar points-----not how to talk the language.  It really depends on the individuals experience at a school.  Someone would think that "They will speak English to me because they studied it in school."


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't know too much about European education, but I have to say that United States education is in horrible condition, especially since the "no child left behind" program went insane.  I know a young child that really should have been left back and instead of doing what's right for the child they pushed the child on to the next grade.

Let's ignore that.  Every time I go into a store, be it the super market or Yankee Candle, the cashier cannot add up the change without the adding machine.  It really disturbs and sickens me.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I heard somewhere that the Irish education system is apparently the best in the world, at least the private schools are supposed to be. I think that's why so many Spaniards, Germans etc. come here to learn (and because it's cheaper )


----------



## Outsider

PianoMan said:


> What do you think about the quality of European education over that of American education, especially on their emphasis of language learning?


Your question is very specific, and I'm afraid I don't know enough about American language education (or European language education as a whole) to answer, but I wanted to say one thing. You should probably nuance the situation in Europe. For instance, I've read more than once here in the forum British people complaining that they hardly learned anything in their foreign language classes. It might be more an English-speaking vs. non-English-speaking thing, than an American vs. European thing.


----------



## fenixpollo

Here is another thread with a vague and overly general question about educational systems: *Copy another country's educational system?*

And here are some other related threads: *Your country's education system**, **Educational system in the Arab countries**, *

*Education system in Great Britain**, **Educational system in Britain**, **Comparing Education systems in France and UK**,*

*Is USA education bad?**, **Addressed as Mr. and Miss by Teachers**, *

*How are our students fairing?*, *selective schools**, **compulsory school: flunking**, *

*Public and Private education**, **public schools in private hands**,* 

and there are more education-related threads than that!


----------



## Grop

John-Paul said:


> European schools were not created to build citizenship.



Well, I don't know about every school system in Europe, but in France schools have been created so as to support republican ideas and build French citizenship. French children in the early 20th century have been taught not to use local dialects, how good it was to have gotten rid of kings and how nasty were the Germans.

Today things are different, but schools in France still have the mission to make you be a nice citizen.

Well, it is a bit off-topic, but I have no opinion about the school system in the US. I think it will be hasardous to make any generalisation on scool systems in Europe.


----------



## Vladislav

I think there are few thing worse that the education in ... I don't know the rest of Europe but in Spain for sure. And it is getting even worse because of a great number of illiterate immigrants that are arriving en masse during the last decade. 

There are three main problems:

1. Bad environment: the parents are not giving a good example and the friends neither. The pupils don't have any motivation. 

2. No real measures or panalties can be undertaken.
If a student fails all his exams he will be X severely. X in Spain (Europe?) means NOTHING. 
  At the most his parents would say "Dear sun, you could have passed at least one of them . And the "dear sun" would reply "Yea, daddy, during the course I'll try ... probably I'll pass Physical Education"  
  Neither teachers, nor parents can do anything. And, besides, the parents, mostly are unwilling to do someting.

 Result: the students don't care not passing.

3. Very bad system in general.
 - The students are passing the courses with the well-known in Spain "law of minimun effort", that is: doing nothing. And it seems to be that there's no other option in a system where EVERYBODY has to finish a secondary comlulsory education. 

And what if he doesn't pass his exams? He'll stay for another year in the same course. But this situations can not last forever and therefore the teachers try to get rid of such students as fast as they can. --> they also pass the course failing the most part of the subjects. --> everybody understands: whatever thet do, they'll pass for sure.

 - No difference made, between good and bad students.

  And what is even worse: those who want more are seen as a fool. "What/who/why are you studing for?" they ask him. 

 And then comes the envy of the class.  I was a very good student, it's a matter of fact. But I was one of the most hated as well.  


  NOTIHNG WORSE THAN THE SPANISH EDUCATION!     
  And for sure, probably not all, but part of the characteristics of the Spanish education are common in the rest of Europe.


----------



## Etcetera

I don't quite understand the question. 
How can one compare American and European education? Europe is really huge, even without Russia. America is big, too. And to have the right to compare, you need to know both systems. How many of us can boast that they have studied both in America and Europe?
And I can say about the Russian education almost the same as Vladislav's said about the Spanish one. Even at Moscow University (the best in Russia, they say) you can receive your diploma without much effort.


----------



## Poetic Device

Etcetera said:


> I don't quite understand the question.
> How can one compare American and European education? Europe is really huge, even without Russia. America is big, too. And to have the right to compare, you need to know both systems. How many of us can boast that they have studied both in America and Europe?
> And I can say about the Russian education almost the same as Vladislav's said about the Spanish one. Even at Moscow University (the best in Russia, they say) you can receive your diploma without much effort.


 

See, with what you just said about Moscow University, I have atheory about that.  We have basically the same thing at Harvard and Yale.  My theory is yes, you do have to work very hard to get there and what have you, but once you are in there you are pretty much set because those are places of prestige, and they don't want to have to admit to failing anyone.  Have you ever noticed that you always here of their great report and over all GPA?  Did you ever hear of anyone failing there?


----------



## ElaineG

This is kind of a messed-up question:

First, of all, I'd say throughout the United States and Europe, class matters.  The non-elite students I taught English to in Sicily were _terribly educated_ -- in their own language, in foreign affairs, in history, you name it.  The educational system there was failing them at least as badly as the American educational system fails its most disadvantaged students. 

In the United States, you can get a very high quality public high school education, including advanced language education, 2nd year calculus, advanced physics and chemistry-- in a lot of places.  I did.  I know plenty of kids who are getting the same today -- kids with aggressive, educated parents who seek out the best for their children.

Here in NYC you can attend arguably the best public high school in the nation (Stuyvesant) or some of the worst, where not getting beat up will be the prime priority.  Class will have some to do with where you end up, your parents' attitude (which is not separable from class) will be probably the largest factor.

I _suspect _this is true in much of Europe as well.  I have certainly met exceedingly well educated French and Italian people, but the schools in my area of Sicily were not producing them. Similarly, my French friends are incredibly literate and their educational backgrounds are enviable -- but I _doubt_ that the kids in the banlieue are getting the same education.

So, to compare a nation to a continent, or even a nation to a nation is a bit odd.  Are we asking what education the best educated students get? The worst?  The degree of equality attained accross the system?  

Second, to compare the U.S. to Europe is, in the views of many, to compare irrelevant to irrelevanter.   I listened to an NPR piece this morning on the recent report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce.  The report was all about educational reform.  Guess what, no one mentioned _Europe_ and no one mentioned _language learning_.  It was all about the highly skilled workers coming out of _India _and _China_.  Surprise!  I would surmise that both Europe and America are scratching their heads when it comes to technical and science education.


----------



## ElaineG

> My theory is yes, you do have to work very hard to get there and what have you, but once you are in there you are pretty much set because those are places of prestige, and they don't want to have to admit to failing anyone. Have you ever noticed that you always here of their great report and over all GPA? Did you ever hear of anyone failing there?


 
Well, actually, that's completely untrue.  There is grade inflation at Harvard and Yale, as there is at most American universities, but having attended Yale and now having many friends on the faculty, I can say with confidence that you will work very hard to do well, and that most people do, because they wouldn't have gotten in if they weren't that kind of person.  

The education offered is exceptional in almost every field, and the professors are among the best in the world.  I have the privilege of interviewing students for Yale, and I am constantly amazed at the talented kids that are going there.

Moreover, people do fail.  I know a few people who didn't make it through, and others who took 6 years to do so.  

That's the point I was making above.  The educational spectrum in the United States ranges from the very best to the very worst, and I would suspect most European countries can say the same.


----------



## Vladislav

> And I can say about the Russian education almost the same as Vladislav's said about the Spanish one.


 
I don't know much about the Russian universities, but I've finished the primary and the compulsory school in Moscow. YOU EVEN CAN'T COMPARE the environment, the attitude, the requirements, etc in the compulsory school in Moscow and in Barcelona. 

 As for the primary, in Spain (my sister has been there) ...   I'd better not make any comments on that because I don't want the administrator to errase my post because of excess of swearwords...  



> Even at Moscow University (the best in Russia, they say) you can receive your diploma without much effort.


 
 If your  father is a Gazprom's director you could receive your diploma without even going to the university ...  

(just a joke, as I said before, I don't know much about universities in Russia) 


  Probably it's similar in America, but then you find the American universities among the best of the world. And the Nobel prices, main discoveries made be Americans. 
 What about Europe, that a time ago was the center of the world's science? At the most something is made in Germany, UK, Russia but a few compared to USA.

 Europe clearly is loosing its scientific potential is loosing its human capital superiority. For me, this is the main saurce of the economic problems en Europe.


----------



## Etcetera

ElaineG said:


> Moreover, people do fail.  I know a few people who didn't make it through, and others who took 6 years to do so.


So do I. 
Those students who don't work are excluded, of course. It happens, though not so often (at least, at the Faculty of Philology). I don't know much about the situation on other faculties. 
The point is that it's really difficult to enter a good university, and only the best students can do it. But why so many of them don't want to work as hard after they become students of university? I don't know.

I must also admit that if I were a director of a company or a school, I wouldn't hire anyone simply because they have a diploma of a prestigious university, even if they have a diploma cum laude. Exam marks aren't enough. 
When I was interviewed for my work, I wasn't asked a single quesion about my exam marks. I was just talking with the director in English for about an hour and a half, and she decided that she could as well give the job to me.


----------



## Vladislav

> When I was interviewed for my work, I wasn't asked a single quesion about my exam marks. I just was talking with the director in English for about an hour and a half, and she decided that she can as well give the job to me.


----------



## Etcetera

Vladislav said:


>


It doesn't make much sense to me, you know. Could you express yourself more clearly, please?


----------



## Vladislav

Jeje, sorry. I meant to say:

 Oh my God! How is it possible! What an embarassment!


----------



## Poetic Device

ElaineG said:


> Well, actually, that's completely untrue. There is grade inflation at Harvard and Yale, as there is at most American universities, but having attended Yale and now having many friends on the faculty, I can say with confidence that you will work very hard to do well, and that most people do, because they wouldn't have gotten in if they weren't that kind of person.
> 
> The education offered is exceptional in almost every field, and the professors are among the best in the world. I have the privilege of interviewing students for Yale, and I am constantly amazed at the talented kids that are going there.
> 
> Moreover, people do fail. I know a few people who didn't make it through, and others who took 6 years to do so.
> 
> That's the point I was making above. The educational spectrum in the United States ranges from the very best to the very worst, and I would suspect most European countries can say the same.


 
Then I apologize, tip my hat and stroll away.....


----------



## maxiogee

Vladislav said:


> And it is getting even worse because of a great number of illiterate immigrants that are arriving en masse during the last decade.



Illiterate, or unable to converse in Spanish? 
There's a big difference.
Here in Ireland we have a rapidly-growing immigrant population. Many cannot speak or write English, but they are far from illiterate.



Etcetera said:


> When I was interviewed for my work, I wasn't asked a single quesion about my exam marks. I was just talking with the director in English for about an hour and a half, and she decided that she could as well give the job to me.





Vladislav said:


> Oh my God! How is it possible! What an embarassment!



But that is how it should be, surely.
I imagine that when you applied you detailed your academic achievements in either your CV/resumé or in their application form which you would have filled in.
The purpose of an interview is not to see if you are qualified for a job, it is to see if you are suitable for it, or if you have the kind of motivation or the kind of thinking which the company sees as necessary - alongside any qualifications they require.
Having a qualification - now or fifty years ago - is not the same as having 'what it takes' for any position. We have, probably, all met people who are qualified for the job they do but cannot do it well.

 And always remember —> half the doctors, lawyers and other professionally qualified people in the world finished in the bottom half of their class!


----------



## Vladislav

> Illiterate, or unable to converse in Spanish?
> There's a big difference.
> Here in Ireland we have a rapidly-growing immigrant population. Many cannot speak or write English, but they are far from illiterate.


 
*ILLITARATE!!!*

 That's the problem. If only they were unable to speak Spanish! The fact is that most part of them come from Latin America. Do you think they can't speak Spanish?

  The problem is that in class, where there're 50% of immigrants is IMPOSSIBLE to get along with the normal programm. 
  When I was in the compulsory school in my class there was ONLY ONE IMMIGRANT (apart of me), a boy from Colombia. 

  Well, I will not speak too much about his pronunciation (whenever he was asked to answer some question, 3 was the minimum amount of times he had to repeat what he has said so that the teacher could catch anything). 

 But his knowledge of the subjects seemed to be null. He was failing almost all his exams. Of course he gave up our school in a year and shifted to an easier one.

 Of course it was more difficult to have normal classes with ONLY 1 IMMIGRANT. 

 But, can you imagine a class where 50% are immigrants. Do you think that the bad students will follow the good ones or vice versa? 

 Answer checked with the reality: VICE VERSA.




> The purpose of an interview is not to see if you are qualified for a job, it is to see if you are suitable for it,


 
I think a university degree isn't enough for this purpose altough it depends on the posotion and the company. 

Look one of my previous posts:

Quote:
Even at Moscow University (the best in Russia, they say) you can receive your diploma without much effort. 


> If your father is a Gazprom's director you could receive your diploma without even going to the university ...


 
Each joke is only partially a joke.


----------



## Hocuspocus

Here is my experience: every friend of mine who's coming back from the Usa where they have spent one year for a second senior year or to o to university tells me "That was so easy, you can't imagine, we learnt those things years ago". The level seems quite different.


----------



## cuchuflete

Have we established that gross generalizations about education in areas as large as Europe and the US are not good sources of insight?


----------



## ElaineG

Hocuspocus said:


> Here is my experience: every friend of mine who's coming back from the Usa where they have spent one year for a second senior year or to o to university tells me "That was so easy, you can't imagine, we learnt those things years ago". The level seems quite different.


 
That's funny -- that's exactly the way that all my friends felt about their years abroad at European universities, and the way I felt about my Master's program at University of Edinburgh.  It seemed like child's play, after Yale.

Do you think that the answer is just that people don't study very hard or maybe take easier courses or something during exchange years?


----------



## Vladislav

Uff, probably as some people said, what matters most is that there is a huge educational spectrum in both USA and Europe, territorial and social. 

Maybe we should simply compare the human capital in both regions? At the end a county needs to educate its citizens in order to have a skilled labor force.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Have we established that gross generalizations about education in areas as large as Europe and the US are not good sources of insight?



Not yet 
So far we've only dealt with the generalisations - nobody has been really gross yet! (Give it time!)


----------



## cuchuflete

Ambiguity is well taught on both sides of the puddle.
144 generalities about education give as little insight as any single generality.

And then there is the Irish lesson:





Drum roll announces the entry of Maxiogee into the hall........


----------



## tvdxer

The best source of comparative data between the U.S. and other countries seems to be the PISA test results, which measure skills in math, science, problem solving, and reading.  You can access results from the 2003 tests here.  

> In math, students in the U.S. fall behind those of most European countries, as well as the OECD average.  The mean U.S. math score is about 475, while Spain is just slightly above the U.S., Germany and England rank around 500, France around 520, and the Flemish-speaking population of Belgium ranks the highest, at 550 or so.  European countries ranking under the U.S. are Russia, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Serbia (in order from lowest to greatest discrepancy).  Brazil earned the lowest mean PISA score, about 360.

> The U.S. did a little bit better in the reading section, beating the OECD average by one point with an average score of 495.  Denmark, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Hungary, and Spain ranked slightly below the U.S.  Serbia again had the lowest European average score, 412. A number of Euro countries were higher than the U.S. as well - Poland, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, the U.K., and Netherlands, Ireland and Sweden, scored within 20 points above the U.S.   The highest score went to Fininsh-speaking Finland with a mean of 544.31.  One interesting observation: the Bolzano province in Italy (in the Alps, near Austria if I remember correctly) was a top scorer with an average score of 544.12, just under Finland, while nearly 60 points above the Italian average of 475.66.  Top-scoring (95th percentile) students in the U.S. did better than their counterparts in some of the countries whose mean exceeded the US.

The lowest mean scorer for reading was Tunisia, with 374.6; Mexico had 399.7.

> The U.S. (491.3) ranked slightly below the OECD average of 499.6 on the science test.  Iceland, Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Switzerland, the U.K., Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Finland (Finnish-speaking part 549.7) exceeded the U.S.; Austria, Russia, Latvia, Spain, Italy, Norway, Greece, Denmark, Portugal, and Serbia (436.4) lagged behind the U.S. mean score, in that order.  Italy's overall score of 486.5 is about 80 points under the score received by the Trento province.  The lowest mean scorer on the science test was Tunisia, with 384.7.  

> On the problem solving test, the U.S. ranked near the bottom of the batch, with an average score of 477.34.  The OECD average was 499.99.   The only European countries to fall below the U.S. average were Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Serbia, in that order.  Tunisia took the worldwide low score of 344.74, while Korea had 550.43.

So, judging solely from these results (not necessarily a smart idea), one could conclude that many European countries have better pre-university education systems in the U.S.  However, it seems that most of the world's top-ranking universities are within the country.


----------



## Hocuspocus

I'd rather think that my friends didn't have the opportunity to go to Yale. It depends on the university in the USA, doesn't it?  Most of them went to little universtities... And I don't know anything about Edimburgh university. But I think we've got good-ranking universities in Belgium(look at tvdxer thread). Anyway, it's so difficult to compare...


----------



## Hockey13

Isn't it funny that as you read through a thread like this, if you go from year A to year B, the education systems will undoubtedly get worse?

How many times I've read the exact words:

"In my day, they made us work, but the schools these days are producing people who will let the whole country fall into the can."

Yeh, are they? Want to know a little secret? Without the internet, I would only be half as knowledgeable as I am. For me at least it has much less to do with the education system than it has to do with my parents. But either way, I go to a fantastically difficult university, so...


----------



## fenixpollo

tvdxer said:


> The best source of comparative data between the U.S. and other countries seems to be the PISA test results, which measure skills in math, science, problem solving, and reading.
> 
> So, judging solely from these results (not necessarily a smart idea),


You contradict yourself, dxer. "Don't use these results alone, but they're the best way to judge."  I haven't looked at this PISA test, but I imagine that it's a multiple choice deal.  We continue to rely on these kind of standardized, multiple-choice tests because they are the easy way out: they give a set of numbers that we can compare to other sets of numbers. They don't measure kids in the way that they _should_ be measured -- by what they have learned and can do, not by how well they take multiple-guess tests.


----------



## Poetic Device

You mentioned the internet. It is a fantastic tool. I'm grateful for it because if not for its capability I would have not been able to be on this forum with you wonderful people. However, the internet, just like everything else in life, is what you make of it [i.e. Encyclopedia.com vs. (enter porn name here).com].

When someone says "In my day, they made us work, but the schools these days are producing people who will let the whole country fall into the can" they are refering to things like children are required to posess a calculator when they are in forsst grade. They don't teach math or science or anything like that the way that they used to. I was in what I think was the begining of the end. For example, most high schools (or so you would think) require that you take two or three years of science. Don't ask me how, but I graduated high school only taking one year of biology. The same goes with math. I only took two years instead of the required four.

I'm not sure what everyone else means when they say that sentence, but what is what I mean when I say it. I can't imagine any other country being sad enough to make the same mistakes that this country is.

By the way, Fenix, I full-heartedly agree with you!!!


----------



## maxiogee

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with aqllowing pupils to use a calculator in a test (provided they know from their elementary Maths lessons how to calculate 'properly') because that's how they will be asked to cope _in the real world_ - with a calculator. 

I have never understood the learning-measurement principle be3hind the multiple-choce question.
Ask someone to describe in one sentence what major event happened in  xyzland in 19?? and they either know or they don't. Ask them to pick one from the following four events and by sheer probability a quarter of them should get it right, even if they didn't take the course.


----------



## Poetic Device

I feel there is some concern that should be raised as far as the calculator is concerned because 1.  They don't know the basics. 2.  They are not being trained to use their head in any way at all.  Haven't you gone to the store before and the person behind the register did not know how to make change in the least?There really are not that many people in the United States that can do basic math (PEMDAS) in their head.

The problem that I have the most about thestandardized testing is probably because they only test you on math and language arts (that's in America, at least.  What are they like elsewhere?).  They don't test on anything else, and there are some things that are important that they can't test you on (like your line of thinking).


----------



## djchak

Here's a great article everyone should check out...pertaining to the cultural differences in learning between different countries...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663340/site/newsweek/

QUOTE: "We both have meritocracies," Shanmugaratnam said. "Yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well—like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition."


----------



## fenixpollo

More about PISA: 





> Pencil-and-paper tests are used, with assessments lasting a total of two hours for each student.
> Test items are a mixture of multiple-choice items and questions requiring students to construct their own responses. The items are organised in groups based on a passage setting out a real-life situation.


Rather than just make assumptions, I dug a little and found that the PISA test is about half multiple-choice and half short-answer. 

Although I commend PISA for not being exclusively MC, it's very, very hard to develop a pencil-and-paper test that is worth two beans. Even if PISA were the best of it's kind, it's still a flawed model of assessing educational outcomes.  To paraphrase King: The true measure of a society should be in the development of its people, not in the size of its test scores.


----------



## tvdxer

Yes, we can all make the left-brained complaint, "oh, numbers don't measure my child!".  Of course they don't - not perfectly.  But they do have something to say.  Do you not think children who are better at math will tend to receive higher scores than those who are worse, and children who are better at problem solving will answer more questions correctly than those who aren't so good?

The PISA test is hardly a perfect measure, but it's probably one of the best out there.  I don't know of any measurement of the "development of people".   Tests aren't perfect, but there aren't many alternatives: why do universities rely on ACT and SAT scores for admission?


----------



## Outsider

I have to agree with Tvdxer. 



fenixpollo said:


> To paraphrase King: The true measure of a society should be in the development of its people, not in the size of its test scores.


But the goal of a school system is not to develop people, or to insure their success (that's up to them and their parents). The goal of schooling is to provide the pupils with knowledge and skills they may need in their professional lives.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Haven't you gone to the store before and the person behind the register did not know how to make change in the least?


Yes, of course I have, and so has everybody - but there were shop assistants like that when I was young. They weren't some sort of halcyon days of mathematical ability I was raised in. (I'll let you into a secret, there were days in my retailing days when I was calculationally-challenged  - and that waqsw after we dropped the 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to a pound structure to our currency and dealt in 100 pence to a pound! We all have off days, but the customer who meets us on one of those days sees a snapshot that they think is our eternal self - illiterate and innumerate.

The point is that these kids don't _need_ to be able to calculate change - the cash register is programmed to do that for them. We are judging them by the standards of our time, a time when the register couldn't do that.


----------



## Reina140

I think this is too difficult a question for this forum. As someone said earlier, you would have to take into account, the books, the tests, the teachers, the facilities, the students and the parents . .. . and that's being vague. Society as a whole, is responsible for the future of education. I'm 28, and I feel as though my generation was around the last before the "Technology" came and changed everything. The internet just became popular when I was in high school, but I didn't use it because I thought it was a place for old men to meet young girls (lolol). In my opinion, this starts much earlier. When I was a child, I was forced to have an imagination and GO OUTSIDE to play. These days parents are afraid to let their kids run outside out of view. I think an imagination early on changes the way children learn. (maybe I'm crazy) . . . But I don't consider this a question of European vs. American vs. . . ???? . . . I think this is global. It seems that the elite become more elite and the lazy become more lazy. (Kinda like the Rich stay Rich and the Poor stay Poor . . . . Can you afford a good education) And to clarify that statement, I would like to say, that if some Universities are passing students easily, then, the students who become teachers, have learned from this example. It is a vicious cycle.


----------



## tvdxer

The original poster also asked about language education.  I am pretty certain that European countries, on average, excel in this category.  I read that something like 50% of EU residents can speak a second language fluently, while this is the case for only about 10% of Americans.  However, there are vast inter-country differences - most Britons and Italians are monolingual while the Scandinavians and Dutch are known for their excellent, native-like command of English, and the Swiss often master four languages (or so I hear).

There might be the issue of motivation here however.  When you speak what is currently the world's primary language of global communication, and are surrounded by it for hundreds or even a thousand miles in all directions, you are less motivated to learn other languages, with the possible exception of Spanish.  Continental Europeans, on the other hand, have several language zones within a relatively short distance.   Within a 250 mile radius of Amsterdam, there's German, Danish, Dutch, English, and French.   Where the slightest change in accent occurs in the United States, an entire language change occurs in Europe.


----------



## fenixpollo

tvdxer said:


> Tests aren't perfect, but there aren't many alternatives: why do universities rely on ACT and SAT scores for admission?





Outsider said:


> But the goal of a school system is not to develop people, or to insure their success (that's up to them and their parents). The goal of schooling is to provide the pupils with knowledge and skills they may need in their professional lives.


 You two are describing the current model. Ideas of "efficiency" and "a classical education" are as old as Plato and Dewey, and should be just as defunct. The traditional model served our society well enough during the industrial age, but hasn't changed significantly to adapt to post-industrial reality. The SAT and PISA may be valid measures of children's retention of information... but they should not be considered valuable because they are not helping our education system to evolve.


----------



## Outsider

tvdxer said:


> The original poster also asked about language education.  I am pretty certain that European countries, on average, excel in this category.  I read that something like 50% of EU residents can speak a second language fluently, while this is the case for only about 10% of Americans.  However, there are vast inter-country differences - most Britons and Italians are monolingual while the Scandinavians and Dutch are known for their excellent, native-like command of English, and the Swiss often master four languages (or so I hear).
> 
> There might be the issue of motivation here however.  When you speak what is currently the world's primary language of global communication, and are surrounded by it for hundreds or even a thousand miles in all directions, you are less motivated to learn other languages, with the possible exception of Spanish.  Continental Europeans, on the other hand, have several language zones within a relatively short distance.   Within a 250 mile radius of Amsterdam, there's German, Danish, Dutch, English, and French.   Where the slightest change in accent occurs in the United States, an entire language change occurs in Europe.


And it's an unbalanced comparison, even in linguistic terms. Many Europeans speak at least two languages -- O.K., but very often the second language will be English, which is a very special case. Naturally, those for whom English is already their native language have less incentive to learn other languages.



fenixpollo said:


> You two are describing the current model. Ideas of "efficiency" and "a classical education" are as old as Plato and Dewey, and should be just as defunct.


I disagree. I think those who oppose the classical paradigm of education have made impressive strides in the latest decades, and been very successful in imposing their own modern ideas on public schools. Hence the low scores, IMO.


----------



## Poetic Device

I'm curious to know, In countries aside from the U.S.A., do the teachers dedicate at least half of the school year to just teaching what will be on those tests?  I know that a good amount of the schools in NJ soley teach that.


----------



## Arianton

I'm sorry if I'm repeating anyone, I just didn't want to take the time to sit and read everyone's posts. There are good things and bad things about both educations.  I will compare things.

US-

Sports are hurting students because they are treated special sometimes by teachers because of their status on a team.

Teachers are being hired to teach subjects that they are not well prepared in because they can coach a certain sport.

Students are passed on to a grade no matter what their level of skills are.  They may do poorly in a course and they are passed on because that is how your system is! It is horrible!

Europe (in Belgium at least)-

Students decide their fate at a young age by taking a test that determines if they can make it to university or not...I don't agree with this, at least one can change their own fate, but still I believe this kind of doesn't give those people hope you know? They are told "you are going to a technical school cause you aren't hard working enough or aren't intelligent enough" and they believe it.

One thing though, is here in Belgium we study WAY to much and I wish there were more sport opportunities with school...hmmm 

Sorry my post is spastic!


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:


> I'm curious to know, In countries aside from the U.S.A., do the teachers dedicate at least half of the school year to just teaching what will be on those tests?  I know that a good amount of the schools in NJ soley teach that.


To answer that question, we would have to define very carefully what it means to "study for the test". IMHO, teaching "for the test" can be as good a technique as any other, in the hands of a good, challenging teacher, and, of course, an utter disaster in the hands of a bad, lazy teacher (and a bad school system overall doesn't help, either).

You know what I think is most wrong with public education? This mentality that there is a One, True Way to teach, which every single last teacher must follow blindly (and which tends to change after every election).


----------



## Poetic Device

I agree with you.  I see so many new teachers that swear they are going to change the world get beaten down by the system because what they are doing (which, most of the time, is the best for the children) is not by code and they have not gone through the system/chain of command.


----------



## fenixpollo

PD, you and Outsider are talking about 2 different things. He's saying that the system works, and that the reason that there are problems with test scores is that these young idealists come in and try to fix something that isn't broken, with their talk of a "holistic" approach and other New-Age jargon. They don't teach what they should in the way they should, so their students' achievement suffers.

You seem to say, on the other hand, that the system is broken but that it destroys the young innovators who want to improve it because of its traditionalism, inflexibility and entrenched old guard that maintain the status quo.

I agree with you, PD.


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:


> PD, you and Outsider are talking about 2 different things. He's saying that the system works, and that the reason that there are problems with test scores is that these young idealists come in and try to fix something that isn't broken, with their talk of a "holistic" approach and other New-Age jargon. They don't teach what they should in the way they should, so their students' achievement suffers.


That's not what I was trying to say at all. 

I think the system _is_ broken, and it's broken because the "New Age types" (though I wouldn't quite describe them as such, especially in this neck of the woods ) have managed to climb to the top of it -- discretely aided, I suspect, by less progressive types who just don't care much about public education either way. After that, what individual teachers try to do will have little effect on the overal situation. (And I must admit that individual teachers can be quite mediocre, too.)


----------



## fenixpollo

So, do you think that the educational system in Portugal or in the US has changed at all over the last 100 years?  You seem to be saying that you think it has changed, and too much in the wrong direction.

I'm saying the opposite -- that it hasn't changed enough, while society has changed radically. 

Perhaps we can only agree _that_ the system is broken, but not _why_ it's broken or what to do about it.


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:


> So, do you think that the educational system in Portugal or in the US has changed at all over the last 100 years?  You seem to be saying that you think it has changed, and too much in the wrong direction.
> 
> I'm saying the opposite -- that it hasn't changed enough, while society has changed radically.


That's a good summary of our disagreement. 



fenixpollo said:


> Perhaps we can only agree _that_ the system is broken, but not _why_ it's broken or what to do about it.


And that's a very serious problem. We need to be able to put our ideological leanings aside, and analyse education objectively if we wish to improve it, but it's so difficult to get untainted data -- or untainted analyses.


----------



## fenixpollo

I think that getting the data is fairly easy. It's the analyses of the data that are problematic. What is your suggestion of how to "put our ideological leanings aside"?  Idealogically, I lean towards practical application in favor of wrote learning (as an example). Other people lean towards "giving students a body of knowledge". This isn't political, but these ideologies are definitely at odds.


----------



## Outsider

Let's say I'm mostly on the other side of the spectrum, i.e. "give them a body of knowledge" (though, to me, practical skills are also a form of knowledge).

Then putting our ideological leanings aside means that at some point we agree to stop arguing, and look at the data. And if the data says practical application gives better results, I agree to accept that model, even though I don't like it. And if the data says giving the students a body of knowledge gives better results you agree to accept this policy, even though you think it's icky. And (perhaps the most important!) if the data does not say anything definite either way, we both agree to stop trying to impose our way on others.

If only everyone were as reasonable and level-headed as the two of us.


----------



## Thomsen

As someone who has experienced both on several levels I have to say terms of pre-college education in the USA (K-12), there is a world of difference between public and private schools.  It is frightening how much of a difference that makes except perhaps in the most affluent public school districts.  But really when it comes down to it, there is one factor that is just as important: individual motivation. 

I think it is misleading to imply that teachers are at fault for underperforming students, nor is money always a factor.  Case in point, DC spends more per student than any state on average yet has a pretty abysmal record in terms of education.  New Jersey (where I went to school) actually redistributes a lot of money between school districts, but still has widely different education outcomes.  It also spends less on average and despite what some on the board might think is often ranked near the top of US states in educational performance (as it is measured anyway).  [Source: measuringup.highereducation.org]

My point is that when you are analyzing education it is just as much of a societal issue as pure educational quality.  Even an average child of rich parents will have a good chance in competing for a spot in top-tier universities.  That said smart students who also possess drive can also compete for those spots.  While Europe uses tests to decide who gets a state education, America has scholarships for those who deserve a spot but cannot afford the costs.  And I understand that other countries are increasingly moving towards a middle point where some students pay more to buy their way into better schools.

I think that if we are looking at issues in educational quality, we should examine the underlying factors that lead so many not to advantage of what is being offered*...

*By which I mean family pressures, mass media, job prospects, and similar factors.


----------



## river

ElaineG said:


> That's funny -- that's exactly the way that all my friends felt about their years abroad at European universities, and the way I felt about my Master's program at University of Edinburgh. It seemed like child's play, after Yale.
> 
> Do you think that the answer is just that people don't study very hard or maybe take easier courses or something during exchange years?


 
You tell us, E. Just what _were_ you studying in Edinburgh?

I've seen brilliant people come out of small seemingly insignificant colleges. Granted, such people tend to go on to more prestigious universities. But I believe that it's not so much where you go, but what you got.

Think of Vladimir Horowitz. He was home-schooled!


----------



## Outsider

Thomsen said:


> While Europe uses tests to decide who gets a state education, America has scholarships for those who deserve a spot but cannot afford the costs.


We have scholarships in Europe too. I think *Arianton*'s description of the Belgian school system may have given you the wrong impression.

And one is not tested to decide who gets a state education. Everyone can have it. One is tested to be ranked by the higher education institutions one applies to. (That I know of, anyway.)


----------



## Thomsen

Outsider said:


> We have scholarships in Europe too. I think *Arianton*'s description of the Belgian school system may have given you the wrong impression.
> 
> And one is not tested to decide who gets a state education. Everyone can have it. One is tested to be ranked by the higher education institutions one applies to. (That I know of, anyway.)


 
Well, yes.  But if we are talking about educational quality, then almost everyone in the US can get a very inexpensive education through community colleges, however, most people would not consider that on par with competetive private and public universities (Harvard, UCLA, UVA etc).
I am sure it is the same in Europe.  Only so many can get into Oxford University of Paris, etc)...

Would you say that the same distinctions in (perceived) educational quality are not made there by prospective employers and for admission to postgraduate programs?

I know from an Australia friend that she undertook a law course in Sydney and had to be in the 99% or so because of demand while others are easier to get into.  At the same time I remember hearing from a Spanish professor that (at least historically) law was a rather easy course of study to undertake because it was less in demand.  So that would perhaps be one major difference because in the US a particular major isn't often segregated from the University in terms of difficulty to such a degree...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Thomsen said:


> While Europe uses tests to decide who gets a state education, America has scholarships for those who deserve a spot but cannot afford the costs.  And I understand that other countries are increasingly moving towards a middle point where some students pay more to buy their way into better schools.



In Ireland, university is free for everyone


----------



## Thomsen

Pedro y La Torre said:


> In Ireland, university is free for everyone


 

Sorry I meant that some countries are moving toward different fee schedules.  Others obviously are free for everyone which is actually what Americans tend to think of when we think of European universities.


----------



## djchak

Pedro y La Torre said:


> In Ireland, university is free for everyone




Question... I hear there aren't that many older students in most of Europe, where as it is quite common to see students over the age of, say , 30 in most colleges and universities. Quite a few are middle aged women deciding to go to college after the kids are grown up.

Is there any age cutoff at the "free uni's" in Europe?


----------



## tvdxer

Here's one ranking of world universities: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm

The only non-U.S. schools to make it in the Top 10 are Cambridge University (#2) and Oxford (#10), both in the U.K.  The highest ranking continental school was only at #27.


----------



## cuchuflete

Reading through this thread I draw on decades in and around academia, both in the US and in Europe, and other decades–with some overlap–in the commercial world, and come to a few preliminary conclusions....

For geographical and cultural reasons, European education gives much more attention to foreign language instruction.
Some of it is of very high quality, and some is dismally bad.
The same qualitative range may be found in the US.  Many schools offer language instruction at an embarassing level, and some teach languages very well.  

Beyond that restatement of the obvious, I don't see great differences between the US and European educational results, though curricula and styles differ a lot from country to country and within countries.   A minority of graduates, on both continents, at both the secondary and university levels leave school with a lot of knowledge, including the ability to reason.
Many leave with heads full of disparate facts, and not too much ability to string these together and deduce much from them.  

There does seem to be a big difference in the way specialist education takes place, though I have no reason to believe that it's better in one system than another.  In the US, many
university undergraduates follow a so-called "liberal arts" curriculum.  The intent, and often the outcome, is to give students a broad, if not deep, exposure to many fields of knowledge.  This is often followed by graduate school specialization in a single field, such as literature, law, commerce, medicine, etc.   In contrast, I know many Europeans who began their specialization at the undergraduate level.  These people also seem to have broad knowledge of other fields than that of their specialization, so I assume that they learned about the other subjects before entering university.
Comments and corrections to the above are invited.

For Europeans and others not familiar with US liberal arts curriculums, I'll describe that of my university, which is broadly similar to other programs, except for its lack of a "credit hour" system.  The school operates on a trimester system, in which a student takes three course per term, or a total of 36 courses for graduation.  In addition to a major field, which usually accounts for some 9 to 12 courses, each student is required to take four courses, not including the major, in each of three broad areas—sciences, social sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, history, etc.), and humanities.  The school also has a foreign language requirement, and most students spend at least one term in another country.  Thus a student working to graduate with a degree in French literature and language would also study, for example, physics, calculus, geology, economics, etc.  Students following a pre-med course, in preparation for admittance to medical school, would also be likely to take courses in literature, religion, history, etc.


----------



## Arianton

I think that normal public schools in Belgium have horrible foreign language pedagogy!  Well in Belgium I think that the Flemish have better language skills. Almost all Flemish speak French very well. But there are almost NO Walloons who speak a lick of Flemish. The only thing most Walloons can say is "Ja, ik spreek een beetje vlaams".  I don't know.  I suppose it depends on where you live!


----------



## roxyfoxy

well, having read everything that has been said before me, it's interesting to notice all kinds of similarities between educational systems in different countries of this world and it didn't strike me too obvious to realize that on one hand us, people, have the same backgrounds when it comes to education. on the other hand, everywhere you go you will find, in your own opinions, schools that have good/bad educational systems, and that is according to your own personal standards. yes, systems are different everywhere and that's because people with different backgrounds make them. and it's only natural for two different continents to deal with the same problem, no?
as to the language learning, i have been taught in Romania that if you want to survive in the european world you have to learn at least 2 languages...and the reason why? well, it's good for you and you future careers, they say. and to be honest, they(our teachers) were right: you want a good job back home, one of the requirements of that job will be the many languages you can speak. it's tough, but it's reality!
and yes, i know all that issues with people going to universities and getting their diplomas not because they can do it( cause they can't), but because of their many money(that they can buy their diplomas with) and because of the many relations they have among the "highly esteemed" teachers of those universities. it's all about bribing and having the right strings to pull, unfortunately!!! and the system doesn't really care as long as everyone goes with the flow, nobody tries to do anything about it. it is sad, but it is our reality we live in!!!


----------



## TRG

PianoMan said:


> What do you think about the quality of European education over that of American education, especially on their emphasis of language learning?


 
I find the question statement a bit telling in its wording- "European over American". This is a typical chauvinistic view of those who wish to find fault with anything American, and especially our pigheadedness in not learning more foreign languages. Personally, I think people should study a foreign language because it simply makes you a better educated person. To me, language is interesting, but in the US speaking a foreign language is of very little practical benefit to the average person and it would be hard for me to argue the case that they would benefit greatly by spending more time on it. Enough on that already.

As for the general matter of comparing educational performance across boarders, it must be incredibly difficult and I hope that education professionals everywhere are always trying to improve how we educate our children. In the US it is difficult to compare performance even between states so I can't imagine how it works between countries. 

Sometimes I think we become too focused on the latest fad in education and forget about basics. For instance, within the past week I listened to a discussion on National Public Radio about how to teach math to elementary and high school students. I think to myself, math is math, how is it that in 2006 we still do not know how to teach math? My only personal experience with this occurred when I tried to help my two children with their math when they were in high school. They would always becomes frustrated because my way of explaining things did not mesh well at all with what their teachers were telling them. Having a college degree in engineering I always thought my math was pretty good, but apparently of no use to my children because what I had been taught was 20 years old. With that I will close by sharing one really corny joke about math:

A boy comes home from school and his somewhat of a bumpkin father asks him what he learned in school today. The boy replies, "well, in math we looked for the lowest common denominator." The father says, "gee, we were looking for that when I was in school. I figured they would have found it by now!"


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:


> For Europeans and others not familiar with US liberal arts curriculums, I'll describe that of my university, which is broadly similar to other programs, except for its lack of a "credit hour" system.  The school operates on a trimester system, in which a student takes three course per term, or a total of 36 courses for graduation.  In addition to a major field, which usually accounts for some 9 to 12 courses, each student is required to take four courses, not including the major, in each of three broad areas—sciences, social sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, history, etc.), and humanities.  The school also has a foreign language requirement, and most students spend at least one term in another country.  Thus a student working to graduate with a degree in French literature and language would also study, for example, physics, calculus, geology, economics, etc.  Students following a pre-med course, in preparation for admittance to medical school, would also be likely to take courses in literature, religion, history, etc.



It's interesting that you state that.  I was looking at a study-abroad brochure for a school in England (University of Bath, I think) and noticed that their programs have set paths four years long!    (For example, if you chose urban design, all 4 years would be devoted to urban design or urban design-relevant courses).  For most American college students, being able to wait at least until your third semseter (second year) of university to decide on your career path, and having to enroll in courses to fulfill a set of liberal arts area requirements, is considered a given.  I wonder if the "open major" concept exists in Europe.

On the other hand, I have heard that in Germany the last years of high school, for students who choose the gymnasium route, are similar to the first two years of university in the U.S.


----------



## Etcetera

Poetic Device said:


> I'm curious to know, In countries aside from the U.S.A., do the teachers dedicate at least half of the school year to just teaching what will be on those tests?  I know that a good amount of the schools in NJ soley teach that.


When I was finishing school, almost the whole of our final year was dedicated to preparation for our final exams. 
Only a year after I (thank God!) left school, the whole system of school final exams has been changed, so I don't know how it's going now. But it seems that teachers have to dedicate even more time to prepare their people for tests.
Yes, the new system is based solely on tests. I don't know how on Earth is it possible to check one's knowledge of literature through _tests_.


----------



## Lugubert

djchak said:


> Question... I hear there aren't that many older students in most of Europe, where as it is quite common to see students over the age of, say , 30 in most colleges and universities. Quite a few are middle aged women deciding to go to college after the kids are grown up.
> 
> Is there any age cutoff at the "free uni's" in Europe?


I'm male, 63, and expect no problems. I plan to take 4th semester Chinese in '07.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> For most American college students, being able to wait at least until your third semseter (second year) of university to decide on your career path, and having to enroll in courses to fulfill a set of liberal arts area requirements, is considered a given. I wonder if the "open major" concept exists in Europe.


Either-or in Sweden. There are some rather fixed paths, like those leading to a legally recognized label like for example M.D. or Registered nurse or "Civilingenjör" (meaning a Masters in any engineering field). You also have the possibilty to, within limits, compose your own B.A. (kandidatexamen) or M.A. (magisterexamen). The B.A. now calls for a major in a subject studied for at least three semesters @ effectively 20 weeks full time, including a thesis worth 10 weeks. The balance (to the required 6 semesters) could be most anything.

My old system B.A. included 2 semesters each of General linguistics and Semitic languages plus one each of Sanskrit and Phonetics. No thesis required. My M.Chem.Eng. includes a wide selection of subjects, but concentrating on Organic chemistry.

My present path may arrive at a degree in Religious studies, perhaps to include some Chinese, or a degree consisting of "only" Chinese, but in that case 3 years full time of it.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

djchak said:


> Question... I hear there aren't that many older students in most of Europe, where as it is quite common to see students over the age of, say , 30 in most colleges and universities. Quite a few are middle aged women deciding to go to college after the kids are grown up.
> 
> Is there any age cutoff at the "free uni's" in Europe?



Yes, it is very common to see mature students in college here. As to a cut-off point for free uni, I'm not sure. If you're coming straight from school then university is free, if not though I think you have to pay, although the government will give you some sort of a rebate.


----------



## Etcetera

djchak said:


> Question... I hear there aren't that many older students in most of Europe, where as it is quite common to see students over the age of, say , 30 in most colleges and universities. Quite a few are middle aged women deciding to go to college after the kids are grown up.
> 
> Is there any age cutoff at the "free uni's" in Europe?


It's something really unusual in Russia.
In recent year, it has become pretty common that middle aged people go to courses - courses of foreign languages, for example. But at universities, almost all students are young people who enter the university immediately after they left school or one or two years after.


----------



## Outsider

I would say it's fairly unusual in Portugal too (some older people have been forced to go through courses because of career progression, but that's a different matter). And I'm not sure, but I think education is only "free" (well, you have to pay to go to university in Portugal, but it's not much) for those who apply shortly after finishing secondary education, and have no degree yet. Otherwise, I think you pay considerably more.


----------



## Etcetera

Outsider said:


> And I'm not sure, but I think education is only "free" (well, you have to pay to go to university in Portugal, but it's not much) for those who apply shortly after finishing secondary education, and have no degree yet. Otherwise, I think you pay considerably more.


University education is free here only for those who managed to get high marks in their entrance exams. I managed, and I study for free. Those whose marks were lower have to pay, and the fee depends on the university. Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter how prestigious the university is - the fee in Moscow University is considerably lower than in many colleges. It must be the same for post-graduate students.


----------



## djchak

Alll very intresting, thanks for the info.


----------



## gaer

river said:


> Think of Vladimir Horowitz. He was home-schooled!


He was born in 1903 and entered Kiev Conservatory in 1912. He played the Rachmaninov 3rd Piano Concerto at his graduation in 1919, at age 16.

I would hardly call that being "home-schooled"!

Gaer


----------



## John-Paul

Call my cynical, but the only purpose of education is to mold young people in obedient workers. So when we talk about "good" and "better" what do we mean? Does it mean that a good student is automatically a willful future employee? A student with excellent scores is also one who completes his/her work on time, who is compliant with the educational system. There is no reward for individualism or creativity. Remember, we're talking about education in very broad strokes, so there is no need just talk about the top schools because they only represent a small percentage of the bulk of students.


----------



## roxcyn

John Paul, your comments got me thinking.  Just because someone gets good grades at school does not mean he or she will be a good worker.  I am sure we can think of examples .


----------



## Riccardino

The reason American education may seemingly fall behind that of European education is because the American system seems quite indifferent to the needs of average students, and caters to below-average students, so that they may become average students, and above-average students, so that they may become the future leaders of society, and keep American power intact.

This occurs by means of funding distribution - so much more money goes to programs like the AP program than to help average students. Europe on the other hand seems more focused to creating an egalitarian society. This causes European students to on the greater whole do better, but at the top American students seem to do better - I lack statistics but it seems far more likely for Americans to get top jobs in Europe than the other way around, which I would see as evidence for the US producing better job market candidates at the top. Top workers - CEO's, diplomats, top engineers, etc - have much more influence than hundreds of average workers ever could.

More European students also study in America than the other way around - being at a top American school, one which came in the top 15 on the recently posted list of World Universities, many students - especially graduate students and PHD candidates- come from Europe. Why would European students come to the US if our schools were worse? Nay, they're better.


In the other realm, the influx of students from India and China can best be explained by American and European contentment. While extreme poverty exists in both countries that is not seen in either the US or Europe, more and more people are coming out of this poverty to be able to receive great educations. The difference is that being 1st or 2nd generation middle or upper class people gives them more motivation to work because they are fully aware of the alternative to not working hard - poverty. Americans and Europeans know not this kind of poverty and therefore won't work as hard to stay away from it.


----------



## Etcetera

roxcyn said:


> John Paul, your comments got me thinking.  Just because someone gets good grades at school does not mean he or she will be a good worker.  I am sure we can think of examples .


For sure!
In Russia, it has been considered very important for a child to study well. But nowadays, many people say that high marks aren't that good, that a child who wasn't as good at school can be more successful in adult life... 
I quite agree with that. I know a number of people who have graduated with diplomas cum laude and can't find a job they'd like to do, and people whose marks weren't very high, but who live now in the U.S. and Western Europe.


----------



## Genecks

I personally believe that the educational centers of America are becoming more violent. Students are worrying more about keeping safe than the grades they get on a test. Students are suppose to go to school to learn, not to experience social pressure.

The educators of America are becoming more ignorant to the needs of students. Fewer students are being taught where to locate educational materials to further their knowledge of the arts and sciences. Educators are not stating where to obtain such materials for unknown reasons, but one possible reason is ignorance.

Students are being treated like numbers instead of individuals. This may be another reason why students are not excelling in educational centers. However, students who have rich and/or educated parents typically excel beyond their less fortunate peers. This is a type of inequality that the American educational system has not correct, nor does it seem to correct. The possible explanation is because of the ignorance of educators.

It could be that educators are either ignorant or apathetic to helping students become well-educated adults.

The educators of America are not doing a good job. They are slacking off and not taking responsibility. Otherwise, educators are not that educated and the American children are doomed to being just as ignorant as the educators. Thus, a vicious cycle of ignorance will continue until someone with megalomania caused by feeling educators never helped the person breaks the cycle, grinds every ignorant educator's nose into the ground, and reforms the American educational system.

Otherwise, more people will become anti-institutional, destroy the academic institution of America, and make the Internet the standard of learning. And that's exactly what is happening.


----------



## JamesM

I think "slacking off" is a bit harsh.   When our U.S. education system was working much better the average classroom had half the number of students it now has.   The focus was also on rewarding academic acheivement with additional resources, rather than pouring resources into raising the level of the lowest common denominator.  Federal program requirements - mandated by Congress but not funded by them - were nowhere near as burdensome as they are today.  

Phenonemal amounts of money are spent on programs that deal with things other than academic preparation, and the schools are required to provide these programs whether they have one student in that category or a hundred. 

Also, students were required to repeat classes if they failed them, or entire grades if they failed a sufficient number of subjects to warrant it.  This has gone by the wayside in favor of "social promotion" to avoid the stigma of being "held back."  As a result, there is no minimum level of competence or education that you can expect from any student at any grade level. 

The result?  The teacher is required to attempt to teach 50 students at all levels of proficiency in a given subject in a classroom designed for 20 with inadequate materials and no significant consequences for the student for any misbehavior or academic failure.  Often, the classroom becomes more of an exercise in crowd control than education.  

I am not a teacher, but I have several friends who are.  The situation is a set-up for failure.  If teachers are growing apathetic, I don't blame them.  So little of their daily time is spent on anything resembling actual teaching. 

Students are required to stay in school when they have no interest in it and no aptitude for it.  If a student is unwilling or uninterested in formal academic education, I think we would do well to have a parallel occupational education program where job skills could be learned by those who have little interest in a broad-based academic education.  

If students were required each year (beyond a certain age) to pass a test to stay in the academic track or be switched to the occupational track if they didn't measure up, our overall performance in schools would skyrocket and we would be teaching a greater number of students the type of information they actually want to learn.

I don't know if it's still the case, but I believe the French system used to be very similar to what I'm talking about here, as well as the German system.  

This idea of "no child left behind" sounds wonderful, but in practical terms it requires that the focus of the education system's resources be brought to bear on the poorest-performing, least-interested students at the expense of all other students.  It may raise the bar of what the lowest performers are in a school, but at the expense of lowering the bar for the entire school.  Overall, it lowers the education of the student body when taken as a whole.


----------



## Genecks

Then I'm assuming teachers simply don't have their stuff together. They need a better pedagogy. Otherwise, they need to become better leaders. I figure they wanted to teach people, but they didn't want to lead people.

It's about being a leader, too.

I've always felt that teachers never correctly assess or evaluate their students. I was talking with a European educator on a website about this. It seems educators start teaching before evaluating. I don't think that's a good idea. Whenever I talk to someone, I learn his or her history, knowledge, and skills before bringing all of it to the next level. Educators assume people are all at the same level because of previous courses taken. Assuming is simply a bad idea.

It's like saying, "All of you are numbers. You're all the same variables. Ok, let's raise the variables." That doesn't work.

If what you're saying about the number of students in a class is true, that would explain why so many students are going to the Internet. They're beginning to notice that teachers are either lazy, ignorant, or unable to teach them.

I remember being taught Spanish in high school once. Every person I knew said that the teacher was fun and excellent. I looked to them and said, "No, she's not." It would have been fun if I were a conformist and played to her illusion. This teacher would not allow a person to ask a question in English or say anything in English. This was a beginning Spanish course. I failed that course because I had no way of receiving help. I hated that teacher when I left.

After getting out of high school, I look back and notice some of the teachers were straight-up fools. I've learned that a lot of teachers make students into guinea pigs. What do I mean? Teachers are experimenting with teaching styles on students, and the teachers are reporting the results from such experiments. Yep.

I've looked through disserations and theses created by educators. They often screw around with teaching styles and unethically manipulate the students. The last one I saw was a thesis about argumentation.

I'd have to say that there is an illusion when people start talking about educators. A person can't think they only want to teach students. I think educators also want to manipulate students. A person who studies this manipulation by educators can find it more and more while looking for it. It makes people think that educators are more considered about manipulating the students as variables, thus making them numbers, instead of treating them as unique individuals.

I also had that same experience when I took my college Spanish course. I was able to use English when talking to the Spanish professor. I earned an 'A' in that course. Interestingly, the professor later admitted that the professors tried to manipulate the students to have better usage of "ser" and "estar" that semester. They notice students in the past could never correctly understand "ser" and "estar."

Apparently, teachers manipulate the students while teaching them. Teachers manipulate students like variables.

I'd have to say there is still more emphasis on learning the Spanish language than any other language in America. The Mexicans came in the 1990s, earned social security, and were able to take away jobs. The stopped later on, but there are still bugs in the system. Either way, more Mexican-Americans are in America than before; and there is a high emphasis on learning Spanish.

Japanese has become a more popular language to learn these days because of Anime and other Japanese things. The third language I learned in high school was Japanese. I know some Japanese, but because of the cultural impact of Mexican-Americans, I'm learning Spanish instead of Japanese these days.

I figure most students are told to study Spanish in America. Given the opportunity to learn another language, many would probably study Japanese because it's cool and hip. Those looking for a scientific education might try learning Latin.

I do know many American univerisities requires students to have four high school years of a language before going into that university. Some universities aren't picky like that, while others are.

Given the chance to move to Europe, I would learn as many languages as soon as possible. Trust me. I bet if I was in Europe for about two months, I could quickly learn five language. I bet I could read and write those languages, too. I could probably do that on my own, too. However, I'd find more enjoyment by doing something like that in Europe.

I figure students in Europe have a better chance of learning a wide variety of language than Americans. In America, we have English, Spanish, and American Sign Language.

With the ability to live in a culture with a variety of languages, a person has a better chance of learning different languages. Those who make friends with Asian people can learn Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and/or Chinese. If a person wants to learn Arabic or Hebrew, he or she probably has to make connections with religious people.

Learning a variety of languages in America is pretty hard. In the past few decades, professors, teachers, and authors lacked the correct way to teach languages. They would have improper language usage in books, lectures, and whatnot. You can look through old, teach-yourself language books and notice this.

When I was learning Japanese in high school, a few of the classmates like I wondered about the pronounciations and spellings of some words. I'm somewhat confused to this day about a few Japanese words because of the books I used.

I've learned that having an Internet community on hand does better than a book, of course. The sad thing is that not many language forums like this existed back in the day. Learning a language was complex, difficult, and left a person wondering if what he or she was correctly learning the language.

I often think to myself, "How is it that I passed Japanese but failed Spanish in high school?"

It's because of the teacher and the teaching style.


----------



## fenixpollo

Genecks said:


> Then I'm assuming teachers simply don't have their stuff together. They need a better pedagogy.


Generally speaking, teachers have their stuff together.  They work as best they can with the pedagogical standards that they are given.





> I've always felt that teachers never correctly assess or evaluate their students... It seems educators start teaching before evaluating. I don't think that's a good idea... Educators assume people are all at the same level because of previous courses taken. Assuming is simply a bad idea.
> It's like saying, "All of you are numbers. You're all the same variables. Ok, let's raise the variables." That doesn't work.


  That's not the teachers who are not evaluating, it's the system that sets the variables and the standards, and says, "make those square pegs fit in our round holes". Most teachers assess on the fly, during the course of the semester. Most teachers are quite adept at this, and astute at determining their students' needs. The fact is that teachers are not given the tools, time or resources to meet each student's needs effectively, and there are actually disincentives to doing so. All of the incentives for teachers are built around passage of minimum standard tests, not around helping kids learn.





> If what you're saying about the number of students in a class is true, that would explain why so many students are going to the Internet. They're beginning to notice that teachers are either lazy, ignorant, or unable to teach them.


 But the students are not lazy, ignorant, or unwilling to participate, right? Let's blame the teachers. That’s easier. Then we don’t have to fix the system. 





> This teacher would not allow a person to ask a question in English or say anything in English. This was a beginning Spanish course. I failed that course because I had no way of receiving help. I hated that teacher when I left.


 This is the best way of teaching Spanish. All of the psychological research about language learning reinforces your teacher's immersion approach. The fact that you were so resistant to it speaks volumes both about the challenges facing teachers and about your attitudes towards teachers.  If she indeed denied you the help that you needed, however, she wasn't doing things like she should, and not being flexible. But on the whole, her approach was sound.





> After getting out of high school, I look back and notice some of the teachers were straight-up fools. I've learned that a lot of teachers make students into guinea pigs. What do I mean? Teachers are experimenting with teaching styles on students, and the teachers are reporting the results from such experiments.


 Nothing new. All 18-year-olds think that adults are fools. No revelations there. So, where are educators supposed to test whether a particular teaching style works? In front of their closet mirror?





> I've looked through disserations and theses created by educators. They often screw around with teaching styles and unethically manipulate the students.


That's a pretty strong accusation that you fail to back up. 





> Either way, more Mexican-Americans are in America than before; and there is a high emphasis on learning Spanish.


 There are more people in the US that speak Spanish, and there is more emphasis on learning Spanish in order to communicate better with them. What you say is both true and logical. What's the problem?





> I figure most students are told to study Spanish in America.


 Unless you live in a US state that borders Quebec. 





> I often think to myself, "How is it that I passed Japanese but failed Spanish in high school?"  It's because of the teacher and the teaching style.


 And because of the student and your learning style -- and your attitudes about the class.  Learning is a two-way street, you know.


----------



## TRG

John-Paul said:


> Call my cynical, but the only purpose of education is to mold young people in obedient workers. .


 
Exactly, but with my newly patented cerebral microchip implant, installed at birth, obediant workers can be had as soon as age six! Seriously, I am sorry you are so cynical about education. It makes me wonder if you have children. I can only speak from my own experience in the US (although we did have an exchange student from Germany one year) children go to school to acquire the basic skills they need to get along in life and to become well rounded people (no fat American jokes please). Everyone takes or is exposed to art and music where there is ample opportunity for individuality. In addition, the schools here have athletics integrated with the school, which everyone seems to like and arguably has little to do with learning to be an obediant worker (except for teamwork I suppose). Students are supposed to learn in school that if they don't do their work and study they will not succeed. At what point in anyone's life are those principles not important?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Genecks said:


> I'd have to say there is still more emphasis on learning the Spanish language than any other language in America. The Mexicans came in the 1990s, earned social security, and were able to take away jobs. The stopped later on, but there are still bugs in the system. Either way, more Mexican-Americans are in America than before; and there is a high emphasis on learning Spanish.



You seem to be saying that it is morally wrong to immigrate to the U.S. and seek gainful employment.  Shame on  your grandparents and great-grandparents!

What bugs in what system?

And how in the world does this relate to the quality of education in your country?


----------



## jabogitlu

> So little of their daily time is spent on anything resembling actual teaching.



This is quite true for many educators.  One of my parents has been a teacher for years and I am regularly amazed at the amount of data she has to compile and analyze that has very little to do with teaching anything.  She has grown so disillusioned by it that for several years she has just written down random numbers in her "databases" as she nor any of her superiors ever consult the information, yet she is still required to do it.

Whoever posted about the faults of the education system lying wholly, or at least largely, on the teachers is, I feel, a bit 'out there.'  Rarely is there ever any system or institution that is failing that doesn't have enough blame to go around for everyone.  If you're truly looking for someone to blame, though, look to the administrators and to the local, state, and federal governments.  The people that run the school system in my county are appointed by a good-old-boy buddy-system and many of them have very little experience, if any, inside a classroom or a school building.


----------



## Outsider

And it's not just in the U.S., I'm afraid..


----------



## beakman

As I was reading this thread my interest and anguish were growing. 

I agree with Vladislav that the level of Spanish education is very low. Nobody cares here to acquire good knowledge, nor teachers (they take any opportunity to get sick/ depressed, consequently, children can spend half a semester without a teacher...or the subject is taught meanwhile by the teacher of other speciality, Spanish- by Maths teacher, etc.), nor children -they go to school and do nothing (even many of them can't read in their mother tongue, have poor vocabulary), nor their parents - great majority of them don't read, are used to watch television and work long hours to maintain their offsprings. As for Second language teaching, it's the worst thing I've ever seen. Nor teachers, nor students can speak English (at least, where I live and with exeption of natives. Teachers only are able to write in English. The pronunciation isn't taught. Students can't read 4 words in English. They read it as it was Spanish.



Etcetera said:


> For sure!
> In Russia, it has been considered very important for a child to study well. But nowadays, many people say that high marks aren't that good, that a child who wasn't as good at school can be more successful in adult life...
> I quite agree with that. I know a number of people who have graduated with diplomas cum laude and can't find a job they'd like to do, and people whose marks weren't very high, but who live now in the U.S. and Western Europe.


I think that everything is questionable, even what you pointed as "being successful in adult life". Marks, diplomas doesn't automatically mean that you are clever. Your good position doesn't automatically mean that you are clever. People who moved from Russia to the U.S.or wherever you want - doesn't mean they are successful. (nothing personal, just speaking in general).


----------



## Thomsen

I totally disagree. I was always taught to think for myself and I think that is one of the few successes of the American educational system. Obviously some level of obedience and respect is required for a teaching relationship to work, but I never felt like I was being manufactured into some cookie-cutter drone. Besides, has no one heard of learning on one's own. God forbid I would have to crack a book without it being assigned reading...


----------



## Poetic Device

I think that TRG was referring to the fact that you have to listen to a person that is introduced to you as your superior, do assigned tasks, and you are on a schedule that you cannot steer away from.


----------



## TRG

Thomsen said:


> I totally disagree. I was always taught to think for myself and I think that is one of the few successes of the American educational system. Obviously some level of obedience and respect is required for a teaching relationship to work, but I never felt like I was being manufactured into some cookie-cutter drone. Besides, has no one heard of learning on one's own. God forbid I would have to crack a book without it being assigned reading...


 
 What exactly is it that you disagree with me about? I agree with what you are saying.


----------



## Thomsen

TRG said:


> What exactly is it that you disagree with me about? I agree with what you are saying.


 
OOPS!  In my haste I quoted the wrong post.  Sorry TRG.  My humblest apologies!


----------



## djchak

fenixpollo said:


> Quote:
> This teacher would not allow a person to ask a question in English or say anything in English. This was a beginning Spanish course. I failed that course because I had no way of receiving help. I hated that teacher when I left.
> This is the best way of teaching Spanish. All of the psychological research about language learning reinforces your teacher's immersion approach.
> 
> But on the whole, her approach was sound. Nothing new. .



I would have to disagree with this. How on earth are you going to learn Spanish if you aren't taught the equivalent of the words in English?

Not all people learn languages in the same way, with the same results.

It sounds like we can't admit some teachers out there are doing things the wrong way, and might be too rigid in their methodology.

I've had great teachers...and awful teachers. Such is life, and education.


----------



## Poetic Device

I happen to agree with fenix.  Granted, maybe that method should not have been used until perhaps 1/4 of the way through the semester, but it *is *the best way to learn the language.


----------



## roxcyn

Genecks said:


> Then I'm assuming teachers simply don't have their stuff together. They need a better pedagogy. Otherwise, they need to become better leaders. I figure they wanted to teach people, but they didn't want to lead people.
> 
> *A) It really depends on the teacher--each person is unique and different.  You and I are different.  How would you teach a language class?  What do you think the teachers need to become better leaders?
> 
> B) There are other variables, too.  For example, if a teacher calls a parent because the student acts up in class and receives no support.  If the school does not have enough technology in the classroom (some schools have one computer in the classroom.)  Sometimes there are 30 plus students in the classroom.  Don't you think these variables makes it a little tough to teach?
> *
> It's about being a leader, too.
> 
> I've always felt that teachers never correctly assess or evaluate their students. I was talking with a European educator on a website about this. It seems educators start teaching before evaluating. I don't think that's a good idea. Whenever I talk to someone, I learn his or her history, knowledge, and skills before bringing all of it to the next level. Educators assume people are all at the same level because of previous courses taken. Assuming is simply a bad idea.
> 
> *a) Well I can definately say that most of the teachers I had did assess me with pre-test and things.  It really depends on the teacher and if you the student think the teacher should do that, what don't you ask the teacher?  I think the teacher would be enlightened with your suggestion.  *
> 
> 
> It's like saying, "All of you are numbers. You're all the same variables. Ok, let's raise the variables." That doesn't work.
> 
> *Yes, I agree, but unfortunately I feel that is how this culture is.  Have you ever went to your dentist, doctor, or waited for an appointment somewhere?  It feels as if you are a number.  Actually, I think most teachers try to get to know his/her students, but as I was saying earlier if each class is 30 plus and the teacher has 6 classes that would be 180 students. *
> 
> If what you're saying about the number of students in a class is true, that would explain why so many students are going to the Internet. They're beginning to notice that teachers are either lazy, ignorant, or unable to teach them.
> 
> *It depends on the teacher's expectations.  Since you've talked about Spanish I can give you an example.  Maybe the class has learned both the preterite and imperfect tense, but the teacher doesn't want to give the students the rules just yet because he wants the students to be able to use the forms in writing.  He does however give them some phrases where to use the imperfect and others to use the preterite.  So, if a student comes here and asks about the two tenses, well he/she is either wanting to know the answer or will become more confused because the teacer wants him/her to focus on communicating with the forms first, and then learning the grammar rule later.*
> 
> I remember being taught Spanish in high school once. Every person I knew said that the teacher was fun and excellent. I looked to them and said, "No, she's not." It would have been fun if I were a conformist and played to her illusion. This teacher would not allow a person to ask a question in English or say anything in English. This was a beginning Spanish course. I failed that course because I had no way of receiving help. I hated that teacher when I left.
> 
> *.  Here is a question to ponder: when you are at your job aren't there rules to follow?  Don't you have to come on time, being work, not do drugs, no date co-workers, be friendly to the public, wear a name tag, etc?  Anywhere and everywhere there are rules to follow.  I wouldn't call it a conformist.
> 
> I am not sure about your teacher or anything so I cannot comment on that, sorry .
> *
> After getting out of high school, I look back and notice some of the teachers were straight-up fools. I've learned that a lot of teachers make students into guinea pigs. What do I mean? Teachers are experimenting with teaching styles on students, and the teachers are reporting the results from such experiments. Yep.
> 
> *The same thing happens with you the student or at any other job.  As the student you used the classroom as a guinea pig.  You wanted to do your homework from another class and you would see if the teacher noticed or did anything.  How is the teacher suppose to learn if he/she can never do in class?  It is the same with any other thing--doctors must practice on patients, dentist on patients, hair dressers on patients.  You've got to practice to get better!*
> 
> I've looked through disserations and theses created by educators. They often screw around with teaching styles and unethically manipulate the students. The last one I saw was a thesis about argumentation.
> 
> *I cannot comment since you didn't provide evidence for the thesis, I would like to read it. *
> 
> I'd have to say that there is an illusion when people start talking about educators. A person can't think they only want to teach students. I think educators also want to manipulate students. A person who studies this manipulation by educators can find it more and more while looking for it. It makes people think that educators are more considered about manipulating the students as variables, thus making them numbers, instead of treating them as unique individuals.
> 
> *Again, I will comment that teachers (or any profession such as doctors, judges or any job) has limits and rules.   Again you can refer to my comments about this one.*
> 
> I also had that same experience when I took my college Spanish course. I was able to use English when talking to the Spanish professor. I earned an 'A' in that course. Interestingly, the professor later admitted that the professors tried to manipulate the students to have better usage of "ser" and "estar" that semester. They notice students in the past could never correctly understand "ser" and "estar."
> 
> *I would say---tried to focus on ser/estar, maybe not manipulate. Well obviously if the students don't understand it then the communication is going to break down.  I can only imagine someone saying "Soy 18 años" or "Estoy un estudiante" all which are wrong.*
> 
> Apparently, teachers manipulate the students while teaching them. Teachers manipulate students like variables.
> 
> I'd have to say there is still more emphasis on learning the Spanish language than any other language in America. The Mexicans came in the 1990s, earned social security, and were able to take away jobs. The stopped later on, but there are still bugs in the system. Either way, more Mexican-Americans are in America than before; and there is a high emphasis on learning Spanish.
> 
> Japanese has become a more popular language to learn these days because of Anime and other Japanese things. The third language I learned in high school was Japanese. I know some Japanese, but because of the cultural impact of Mexican-Americans, I'm learning Spanish instead of Japanese these days.
> 
> I figure most students are told to study Spanish in America. Given the opportunity to learn another language, many would probably study Japanese because it's cool and hip. Those looking for a scientific education might try learning Latin.
> 
> I do know many American univerisities requires students to have four high school years of a language before going into that university. Some universities aren't picky like that, while others are.
> 
> Given the chance to move to Europe, I would learn as many languages as soon as possible. Trust me. I bet if I was in Europe for about two months, I could quickly learn five language. I bet I could read and write those languages, too. I could probably do that on my own, too. However, I'd find more enjoyment by doing something like that in Europe.
> 
> I figure students in Europe have a better chance of learning a wide variety of language than Americans. In America, we have English, Spanish, and American Sign Language.
> 
> With the ability to live in a culture with a variety of languages, a person has a better chance of learning different languages. Those who make friends with Asian people can learn Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and/or Chinese. If a person wants to learn Arabic or Hebrew, he or she probably has to make connections with religious people.
> 
> Learning a variety of languages in America is pretty hard. In the past few decades, professors, teachers, and authors lacked the correct way to teach languages. They would have improper language usage in books, lectures, and whatnot. You can look through old, teach-yourself language books and notice this.
> 
> When I was learning Japanese in high school, a few of the classmates like I wondered about the pronounciations and spellings of some words. I'm somewhat confused to this day about a few Japanese words because of the books I used.
> 
> I've learned that having an Internet community on hand does better than a book, of course. The sad thing is that not many language forums like this existed back in the day. Learning a language was complex, difficult, and left a person wondering if what he or she was correctly learning the language.
> 
> I often think to myself, "How is it that I passed Japanese but failed Spanish in high school?"
> 
> It's because of the teacher and the teaching style.



I think the old saying applies to you:
"*You don't know that person until you walk a mile in his/her shoes.*"  Maybe you could major in Spanish as a bachelors and then complete a program like "Teach for America" and come back here when you have been in your teacher's shoes and tell us how it was .


----------



## gaer

Genecks said:


> Then I'm assuming teachers simply don't have their stuff together. They need a better pedagogy. Otherwise, they need to become better leaders. I figure they wanted to teach people, but they didn't want to lead people.


I don't know what your age is. You can read mine, so you have me at a disadvantage.

First, let me point out to you that teachers (at least the ones I know) face or have faced things that have nearly destroyed them or totally forced them out of teaching.

Right now I know about five excellent teachers who retired early because they could not longer stand the insanity. "No Child Left Behind", standardized testing (FCAT in Florida), disappearing benefits, increasing class size, lack of parental support—it goes on and on.

I have huge problems with the educational system in public schools in most states in the US, but don't put all the blame on the teachers.


> I've always felt that teachers never correctly assess or evaluate their students. I was talking with a European educator on a website about this. It seems educators start teaching before evaluating. I don't think that's a good idea. Whenever I talk to someone, I learn his or her history, knowledge, and skills before bringing all of it to the next level. Educators assume people are all at the same level because of previous courses taken. Assuming is simply a bad idea.


I agree, but what makes you think that teachers are allowed to do what you suggest? Some don't care. Some would not change anything (lazy teachers), but many would love to change the system. How many hours a week do you think it would take for a teacher to do all that you have suggested?


> It's like saying, "All of you are numbers. You're all the same variables. Ok, let's raise the variables." That doesn't work.


Of course not. It's called "one size fits all". I teach privately because I can't stand this thinking, but I make less money than people who teach in schools, and I have no benefits. I agree with you about the problem. What are your suggestions about how to solve it?


> If what you're saying about the number of students in a class is true, that would explain why so many students are going to the Internet. They're beginning to notice that teachers are either lazy, ignorant, or unable to teach them.


Please put a lot of emphasis on "unable to teach them", then start thinking about why that might be. You can put the best teacher in the world in an impossible situation, and the teacher will still be crippled by the system.


> I remember being taught Spanish in high school once. Every person I knew said that the teacher was fun and excellent. I looked to them and said, "No, she's not." It would have been fun if I were a conformist and played to her illusion. This teacher would not allow a person to ask a question in English or say anything in English. This was a beginning Spanish course. I failed that course because I had no way of receiving help. I hated that teacher when I left.


I had the same experience. This is why I am very active in the German forum but read almost no Spanish. We used a system called "ALM Spanish" (Audio Lingual Method), and all those who were taught this way (in the 1960s) joke about being able to spew out a couple dialogues without having learned a thing.

However, I have to assume part of the responsibility. If I had been more intelligent about how to learn, if I had studied the vocabulary and read ahead, if I had a plan, I could have succeeded. I learned German without help. Surely I could have learned Spanish WITH help. The teachers were not entirely to blame!


> After getting out of high school, I look back and notice some of the teachers were straight-up fools.


Yup. Many of my teachers were simply average too, nothing special. A few were superb. That's life. Most people are average. Did you ever think of the fact that some of the students in their classes were "straight-up fools"?


> Learning a variety of languages in America is pretty hard. In the past few decades, professors, teachers, and authors lacked the correct way to teach languages. They would have improper language usage in books, lectures, and whatnot. You can look through old, teach-yourself language books and notice this.


Until you master a second language, you are in no position to judge which books and methods work and which do not. Have you done this?


> I've learned that having an Internet community on hand does better than a book, of course.


That's an exaggeration. The Net is a tool. It's a powerful tool. This does not make all other ways of learning invalid.

Gaer


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:


> Not all people learn languages in the same way, with the same results.  It sounds like we can't admit some teachers out there are doing things the wrong way, and might be too rigid in their methodology.


 If everybody learns in different ways, then there cannot be a "wrong way" or a "right way" -- unless you're saying that "the wrong way" is to be inflexible in teaching style.


----------



## gaer

fenixpollo said:


> If everybody learns in different ways, then there cannot be a "wrong way" or a "right way" -- unless you're saying that "the wrong way" is to be inflexible in teaching style.


That was my interpretation.

Yet there is another problem. Let's not take the statement "everyone learns in a different way" too literally. The point is that there are many "learning styles". Certainly there are ways (theoretically) to teach to these "learning styles". 

However, what about theoretical ideas concerning how people learn that turn out to be wrong? Haven't we all seen people with no teaching experience in positions of power come up with ideas about how people should learn that are so wrong, it is simply ridiculous, then use this same power to inflict their ideas on masses of students?

Some education ideas are dead-end. They don't work for anyone.


----------



## Poetic Device

fenixpollo said:


> If everybody learns in different ways, then there cannot be a "wrong way" or a "right way" -- unless you're saying that "the wrong way" is to be inflexible in teaching style.


 
True, but isn't teaching a way where not everyone in the class understands and then neglecting that the "wrong way" of teaching?


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> True, but isn't teaching a way where not everyone in the class understands and then neglecting that the "wrong way" of teaching?


 
This question seems to be based on the assumption that all people in a classroom will learn whatever subject is presented as long as it is taught "the right way". From personal experience, both as a student and a (former) teacher, I can tell you that this is not true.  In nearly every class you will have at least one student who is struggling to avoid failure simply because of their own capacities, a few who are fine with failing if it means less work, and some who will excel no matter how poorly the subject is presented.  The idea that the performance of the students is a direct reflection on teacher's teaching abilities _without taking into consideration the students' willingness to learn _is a false assumption, but prevalent these days.

If you honestly evaluate your classmates, can you say that most of the people _wanted _to learn something in a class and didn't? There seems to be a prevalent attitude of "prove to me that you're worth listening to and maybe I'll try learning something."

Learning is a two-way street, but this fact has dropped out of many recent debates about teaching and learning. If a student is uninterested in learning, you could have a multi-million-dollar multimedia extravaganza going on in front of the classroom, presented by the finest teachers on the planet, and it's not going to make a dent in that student's knowledge of the subject.


----------



## Poetic Device

You're right, I forgot to add the "assuming everyone wants to learn" disclaimer.  I do realize that teaching is a two-way street, however I am not talking about the teachers that actually try in that statement.  I am really talking about the teachers that just read from the book and give you a test without explaining anything...


----------



## djchak

fenixpollo said:


> If everybody learns in different ways, then there cannot be a "wrong way" or a "right way" -- unless you're saying that "the wrong way" is to be inflexible in teaching style.



That was part of what I alluded to...that inflexibility happens to be a common trait in awful teachers.

I find it somewhat outlandish that some people cannot admit that there are bad teachers out there. It's like they would rather tolerate bad teachers then none at all.....


----------



## fenixpollo

There are bad teachers out there. The bad teachers should be given opportunities to explore other careers outside of education.

I find it somewhat outlandish that people are blaming "bad teachers" for our educational problems. It's like they think that a few rotten apples are spoiling the whole barrel.  And the operative word here is _few_, because a small minority of teachers currently in the schools could be called "bad".


----------



## Poetic Device

However, in no offense to you, it only takes one person to spread a virus...

I'm not saying every teacher is to blame and the students are pure and innocent, but I am saying that some teachers need a lesson in teaching in variety.


----------



## fenixpollo

So, the use of ineffective teaching methodology is contagious, like a virus?


----------



## Poetic Device

You're missing the point.  What i am saying is a few teachers is all that it takes.  Depending on what type of school and the age levels that it teaches a single teacher could have anywhere from 30 to 100 students under their belt.  That in itself is enough of a reason to not have variety or teach as well as you may be able to or just simply not care.  Now, let's say that Mr. Greg has 75 students he teaches in one day.  His students are all AP students, which means that since they are in a higher level of cless the chances of them not trying are somewhat al little less than the norm.  However, if Mr. Greg burns out halfway through the day or if the sysstem beats the hell out of him after so many years there are going to be some students that will suffer.  

So you see, I was not saying that one teacher infects ten teachers.  I was saying that one teacher could infect twenty students.

Now before you reply to me, step away from your computer, take five deep breaths and count to ten....  :^)


----------



## gaer

djchak said:


> I find it somewhat outlandish that some people cannot admit that there are bad teachers out there.


Has anyone said that? There are more than 100 posts, so maybe I missed it.


> It's like they would rather tolerate bad teachers then none at all.....


Are you saying that some people think that having _*nothing but*_ bad teachers is better than no teachers at all? I just want to see if I understand you.


----------



## gaer

Poetic Device said:


> You're missing the point. What i am saying is a few teachers is all that it takes.


You mean a few bad teachers, I'm sure, right?

How many bad students does it take to ruin a teacher?


----------



## Poetic Device

Yes, that is what I ment.  I am sorry that I did not clarify.  How many bad students does it take...?  That's a good question, and unfortunatelly I don't know the answer to that.  However, I did say in previous posts that I know the education road is a two way street and what not.


----------



## Etcetera

JamesM said:


> This question seems to be based on the assumption that all people in a classroom will learn whatever subject is presented as long as it is taught "the right way". From personal experience, both as a student and a (former) teacher, I can tell you that this is not true. In nearly every class you will have at least one student who is struggling to avoid failure simply because of their own capacities, a few who are fine with failing if it means less work, and some who will excel no matter how poorly the subject is presented.


Yes, exactly. 
But not always. I had several Maths teachers at school, all of them were middle-aged women. All of them were said to be excellent teachers, and they were excellent teachers. But... With the first, my marks were "good" and "satisfactory". With the second, I only got "satisfactories". I had became absolutely sure that I'm simply uncapable of learning Maths, but then we had a new teacher. And she was a genius! She explained everything so well that even I could understand almost everything. Well, there were some things I never learnt, but still I left school with an "excellent" in Maths. Only because of my teacher!


----------



## JamesM

> Now, let's say that Mr. Greg has 75 students he teaches in one day. His students are all AP students, which means that since they are in a higher level of cless the chances of them not trying are somewhat al little less than the norm.


 
Just as a point of clarification, I think most AP teachers in the U.S. public schools would give their right arm to have a student load of only 75 a day. In our local high school, which is highly rated, the daily student load for an AP teacher is often 300 or more (7 periods * 43-50 students per period.)


----------



## JamesM

Etcetera said:


> Yes, exactly.
> But not always. I had several Maths teachers at school, all of them were middle-aged women. All of them were said to be excellent teachers, and they were excellent teachers. But... With the first, my marks were "good" and "satisfactory". With the second, I only got "satisfactories". I had became absolutely sure that I'm simply uncapable of learning Maths, but then we had a new teacher. And she was a genius! She explained everything so well that even I could understand almost everything. Well, there were some things I never learnt, but still I left school with an "excellent" in Maths. Only because of my teacher!


 
A teacher can certainly make all the difference in the world for a particular student. But, stepping back and looking at your entire class with that genius teacher, can you say there weren't some who did not learn, despite her genius? The impression I was getting from earlier posts in the thread is that the teacher who did such a great job with you should be considered a failure if _any_ of her students failed to learn Math(s) in her class. The fact that any one student didn't learn in her class would be considered proof that she was teaching the "wrong" way.


----------



## Maja

Even at the risk of  bringing rage upon myself, I'll state my opinion on the subject.

Now, I can't speak  of "betterness" as it usually depends of various things such as person's  preferences and opinions, teachers, school itself and therefore it is quite  subjective. 
But *a**ccording to my personal experience,* and those of my  close friends, education in Europe is much, much harder, and more general whilst  US education is more major-oriented and easier. For many people I know (that  went to study in the states), finishing college was walk in a park and they were  usually top of their class (bear in mind that they studied in a foreign  language!!!). 
However, I do  agree with those who said that we cannot look at Europe as a whole, and I can  only speak of southern European countries (as well as some other Slavic states),  basically ex-socialist countries who had very good education  system.​


----------



## Etcetera

JamesM said:


> A teacher can certainly make all the difference in the world for a particular student. But, stepping back and looking at your entire class with that genius teacher, can you say there weren't some who did not learn, despite her genius? The impression I was getting from earlier posts in the thread is that the teacher who did such a great job with you should be considered a failure if _any_ of her students failed to learn Math(s) in her class. The fact that any one student didn't learn in her class would be considered proof that she was teaching the "wrong" way.


Yes, indeed, there were some students who never learnt anything - with any of those three teachers. 
But when we had the third teacher, the number of "bad" students was considerably lower.


----------



## Thomsen

Maja said:


> Even at the risk of bringing rage upon myself, I'll state my opinion on the subject.​
> 
> I really don't know if people here are walking a tightrope or being PC or what, but this whole "you cannot compare it" thing surprises me.* It is almost a universal joke that Americans learn (almost) nothing at school. I am not saying that such stand is not arrogant, but it is as it is. *​
> ​


 

That is the most offensive thing I have ever read here!  Shame on you.  I will try to chalk it up to a translation misstep, however, you should be more careful if that is the case.


----------



## Etcetera

Maja said:


> However, I do  agree with those who said that we cannot look at Europe as a whole, and I can  only speak of southern European countries (as well as some other Slavic states),  basically ex-socialist countries who had very good education  system.​


Surprisingly enough, this "very good educational system" doesn't seem to be regarded as good even throughout Europe, let alone the whole world. 
I've heard many times that the Russian education is the best in the world, but I wonder then, why aren't even Moscow and St. Petersburg University diplomas recognised in other countries?


----------



## JamesM

> But according to my personal experience, and those of my close friends, education in Europe is much, much harder, and more general whilst US education is more major-oriented and easier.


 

Interesting. I can't say that I know either way for sure. Looking for information on Serbia's education system, though, I found the following recent World Bank report:


http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2002/04/19/000094946_02041104064747/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf


Some of the passages from this report include:


_"__funding for education per student has been declining __throughout the 1990s in real terms and even as a percentage of GDP, while the share of GDP devoted to education __-- about 3.5 per cent -- __is among the lowest in Europe. Teachers are poorly paid even relative to other civil servants (about $33 per month equivalent, or about one dollar per day) and schools are starved for basic teaching resources. Teacher __motivation is, not unexpectedly, low."_

_"Educational quality is not systematically assessed and __performance indicators are not used for policy development, for resource __allocation, or for international comparisons. The system is predominately __supply driven and little emphasis is placed on monitoring progress or __measuring education outcomes. Pre-service teacher training is oriented to __traditional academic disciplines and little focus is given to pedagogical __methods or practice teaching. Through lack of funding, there is no formal __system of in-service training, apart from ad hoc efforts by donors and __NGOs in which the MOES is only marginally involved."_​ 
_"the __new government acknowledges that both secondary VET and higher education __lack relevance in Serbia's emerging market economy and that they both need __to become more demand driven rather than centrally directed. *Narrow *__*occupationally-specific training programs in secondary will need to be *__*replaced by broad-based programs* such as management, communications, __languages, and computer science which provide young people with flexible __skills."_

This is only one report, but it does call into question whatever anecdotal observations you and your friends have made. 

There have been other threads where Europeans studying in the U.S. say that the work was very easy, and Americans studying in Europe have said the same. I'm not sure that it is a good basis for comparing the relative strengths of two education systems.​


----------



## cuchuflete

Contrary to Thomsen, I didn't find it offensive so much as glib and superficial.  I have met a great many products of the various US educational systems who are badly educated.  Whatever they may have done during four or more years of college, they didn't appear to have learned very much.   I make the same statement about many Europeans!  

I've had the pleasure of knowing many highly educated Americans and Europeans, all products of their respective educational systems.  Having spent lots of time in both US and European universities, I found the best students to be at equivalent levels of knowledge, despite the stylistic differences of the institutions.  

The statement about European education being more general is perplexing, given the greater specialization required by many European university curricula.  I've usually found just the opposite, with European graduates highly competent in their areas of specialization, but without much grounding in unrelated disciplines.

Here is a contrary "universal joke" for Maja's consideration.
Many Europeans complain incessantly about American economic imperialism...junk food, fashion, films, etc.  These are generally painted as being of abysmal quality.  Europeans seem alarmed that they are being consumed at furious rates _by themselves_.  Are the purchase decisions to consume such rubbish made on the basis of vastly superior education imparted by European schools?  

If you have found anything PC in this post, please feel free to point it out.


----------



## Maja

Thomsen said:


> That is the most offensive thing I have ever read here!  Shame on you.  I will try to chalk it up to a translation misstep, however, you should be more careful if that is the case.


I apologize if you felt offended, and I did change my  post, however I don't see why should I be ashamed of stating an opinion that  many people (that I know and met on my travels) share? And I did say that it is  rather an arrogant stand (as every stand is when we think we are better then others). So what is the problem?


----------



## Maja

Etcetera said:


> I've heard many times that the Russian education is the best in the world, but I wonder then, why aren't even Moscow and St. Petersburg University diplomas recognised in other countries?


To me, that is more of a  political then educational issue. For instance, I know that many people here go  to Russia for some very hard and complicated operations. I think that that (besides  technology) shows that Medical Science in Russia is pretty good, don't  you?


----------



## fenixpollo

Maja said:


> Even at the risk of  bringing rage upon myself, I'll state my *opinion* on the subject.
> 
> Now, I can't speak  of "betterness" as it usually depends of various things such as person's  preferences and opinions, teachers, school itself and therefore it is quite  *subjective*.
> But according to my personal experience, and those of my  close friends, education in Europe is much, much harder, and more general whilst  US education is more major-oriented and easier​


​ 


Maja said:


> I apologize if you felt offended, and I did change my  post, however I don't see why should I be ashamed of stating an opinion that  many people (that I know and met on my travels) share? And I did say that it is  rather an arrogant stand (as every stand is when we think we are better then others). So what is the problem?


 To your credit, you stated that it was your subjective opinion, and you're welcome to it. Just know that your opinion is not based on fact, and therefore (as James and cuchu point out) inaccurate.


----------



## Maja

JamesM said:


> _"__funding for education per student has been declining __throughout the 1990s in real terms and even as a percentage of GDP, while the share of GDP devoted to education __-- about 3.5 per cent -- __is among the lowest in Europe. Teachers are poorly paid even relative to other civil servants (about $33 per month equivalent, or about one dollar per day) and schools are starved for basic teaching resources. Teacher __motivation is, not unexpectedly, low."_


And teachers' pay is important how?


JamesM said:


> _*Narrow *__*occupationally-specific training programs in secondary will need to be *__*replaced by broad-based programs* such as management, communications, __languages, and computer science which provide young people with flexible __skills._


This probably refers to  "specialized" secondary schools (such as economics, law, medicine...), but there  are also Gymnasiums that are "broad-based programs".



JamesM said:


> This is only one report, but it does call into question whatever anecdotal observations you and your friends have made.


I don't follow you?



cuchuflete said:


> Contrary to Thomsen, I didn't find it offensive so much as glib and superficial.


 I didn't say anything different. But if I continue explaining why I said (wrote) it, more foreros will get offended so I put a stop to this. (you don't think that naming smo's statement "superficial" is offending?)


cuchuflete said:


> Many Europeans complain incessantly about American economic imperialism...junk food, fashion, films, etc. These are generally painted as being of abysmal quality. Europeans seem alarmed that they are being consumed at furious rates _by themselves_. Are the purchase decisions to consume such rubbish made on the basis of vastly superior education imparted by European schools?


Who said anything about "vastly superior education"? I said in my first post the following:



Maja said:


> Now, *I can't speak  of *"*betterness*" as it _usually depends of various things such as person's preferences and opinions, teachers, school itself and therefore it is quite subjective_.
> But *a**ccording to* *my personal experience*, and those of my  close friends, *education in Europe is* much *harder*, and more general whilst US education is more major-oriented and easier.





fenixpollo said:


> To your credit, you stated that it was your subjective opinion, and you're welcome to it. Just know that your opinion is not based on fact, and therefore (as James and cuchu point out) inaccurate.


And whose is based on facts??? World Bank is a relevant factor in educational issues??? And I didn't see that Cuchu presented any "facts". We are all talking about* our **own impressions and experiences*.
The  only thing we can do (and stay objective as much as possible) is to find _school  educational programs_ (that are more or less general) and then compare it  (regardless of teachers competency, motivation, school etc.).

Since I stir too many waters, I think I'll retire. 
Cheers  all!
Over and out!


----------



## Thomsen

Maja said:


> I apologize if you felt offended, and I did change my post, however I don't see why should I be ashamed of stating an opinion that many people (that I know and met on my travels) share? And I did say that it is rather an arrogant stand (as every stand is when we think we are better then others). So what is the problem?


 
If our education system _were_ a universal failure, would it not be in poor taste to rather snidely note your superiority (from the context of your culture of course)?    Then again people who consider themselves arrogant aren't often ashamed, so it would be silly of me to expect otherwise.


----------



## ElaineG

> If our education system _were_ a universal failure,


 
It would be odd indeed that we remained the top magnet country for international students (even _after_ the increased post-9/11 visa hassles) in the world:


*



WASHINGTON D.C., November 13, 2006 -- In 2005/06, the number of international students enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions remained steady at 564,766, within a fraction of a percent of the previous year's totals, according to Open Doors 2006, the annual report on international academic mobility published by the Institute of International Education (IIE) with support from the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. This marks the seventh year in a row that America has hosted more than half a million foreign students,
		
Click to expand...

* 
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=89251



> And teachers' pay is important how?


 
I think that the sentence above your question answers it perfectly:



> _and schools are starved for basic teaching resources. *Teacher motivation is, not unexpectedly, low*."_


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> It would be odd indeed that we remained the top magnet country for international students (even _after_ the increased post-9/11 visa hassles) in the world:



Would it really?
How many are going there for the quality of the education alone?
I would suggest that the US has such an omnipresent global image that it would not surprise me if some (many?) students chose to go there just to experience the lifestyle, whilst partaking of whatever quality of education they can get.

How is this "top magnet" status being judged? By the total number of students arriving - or on a weighted basis, allowing for the vast number of educational institutions in each country?


----------



## Maja

Thomsen said:


> If our education system _were_ a universal failure, would it not be in poor taste to rather snidely note your superiority (from the context of your culture of course)?


Again, read my first post!!! Who said anything about "universal failure"??? Please stop putting words in my mouth (so to speak),  and reread my posts before commenting them.


Thomsen said:


> Then again people who consider themselves arrogant aren't often ashamed, so it would be silly of me to expect otherwise.


Hah???


----------



## ElaineG

> it would not surprise me if some (many?) students chose to go there just to experience the lifestyle, whilst partaking of whatever quality of education they can get.


 
It _would_ surprise me -- especially given the relative costs of American education to education in students' home countries.



> By the total number of students arriving - or on a weighted basis, allowing for the vast number of educational institutions in each country?


 
This is in absolute numbers.  Obviously, the United States has more colleges and universities than a given European country.  The fact that teaching is done in English is probably a draw too -- even if the Serbian system is really the best in the world, how many can usefully study there?

Another important factor is likely that these students want to end up here.



> *The most popular fields of study for international students* in the U.S. in 2005/06 were Business and Management (18% of total), Engineering (16%) and Physical and Life Sciences (9%), followed closely by Social Sciences (8%) and Mathematics and Computer Sciences (8%)


 
Meaning, that overall, the sciences are getting the lion's share of international students.  People who want a career in the sciences often want to end up in the United States, because:



> All over the U.S., such research facilities are teeming with bright, young Europeans, lured by America's generous funding, better facilities and meritocratic culture. "In Italy," says Dorrello, "I'd be earning maybe €900 a month." At N.Y.U., he gets nearly three times that. ...  in 2000, the U.S. spent €287 billion on research and development, €121 billion more than the E.U. No wonder the U.S. has 78% more high-tech patents per capita than Europe, which is especially weak in the IT and biotech sectors.


http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/040119/brain/story.html

So people may want to start out studying here, as a way of getting a fast-track to American post-docs and fellowships.

All that said, I really don't think many students would pay $30,000 a year if they thought the educational system was a "failure".


----------



## cuchuflete

Maja said:


> (you don't think that naming smo's statement "superficial" is offending?)  You are welcome to take it as you wish.  Your comments were superficial.  They were based on anecdotal evidence from an unquantified, unnamed sample of indeterminate size. I labelled them accurately.  If that is cause for anyone to be offended, who might that be?
> 
> 
> Who said anything about "vastly superior education"? I said in my first post the following:  You said that those Europeans you knew who had attended US universities found the work easy, and that they did better than their presumably American counterparts, thus implying that they were better prepared, as in better educated.



I'm glad your 'retirement' has been short-lived.  

Why don't we stop trading anecdotes, and look at the effects of education?  Badly educated (according to Maja) Americans elected W.  That's proof enough for me that education in the US has problems.   Meanwhile, over on the other side of the puddle, the benefits of European education have been demonstrated in the elections of such luminaries as Berlusconi and Aznar and....  Or maybe it's that educational equality has led all those with any learning at all to avoid voting, leaving such choices to the uneducated?


----------



## Maja

cuchuflete said:


> I'm glad your 'retirement' has been short-lived.


If challenged I will respond!!!


cuchuflete said:


> Why don't we stop trading anecdotes, and look at the effects of education?  _Badly educated_ (*according to Maja*) _Americans elected W. _


Excuse me??? When did I say that Americans are "badly educated"? Again:



Maja said:


> Please stop putting words in my mouth (so to speak),  and reread my posts before commenting them.


----------



## cuchuflete

Maja said:


> If challenged I will respond!!!
> Excuse me??? When did I say that Americans are "badly educated"?



Before you edited your post, you wrote this:

*It is almost a universal joke that Americans learn (almost) nothing at school.

*That is when you said it.  If "Americans learn (almost) nothing at school" then it is logical to infer that you mean that they are "badly educated", unless of course you think that being badly educated requires that they learn even more than "almost nothing".

I am putting your own words in your mouth.  Sorry if they don't taste good.


----------



## Maja

cuchuflete said:


> Before you edited your post, you wrote this:
> *It is almost a universal joke that Americans learn (almost) nothing at school.*


Yes but I DID edited my post!!! It was probably bad choice of words and I  delete it so there is no point in discussing it further!!!


cuchuflete said:


> If "Americans learn (almost) nothing at school" then it is logical to infer that you mean that they are "badly educated", unless of course you think that being badly educated requires that they learn even more than "almost nothing".


I said some PEOPLE think that (I didn't say I think that!!!), so you can't say  that it is "logical" to conclude that I think Americans are badly educated! And  all that was said in a context of PC. But I don't want to go into that  discussion as more people might get offended. 



cuchuflete said:


> I am putting your own words in your mouth.  Sorry if they don't taste good.


You are taking them out of the context!!! How  convenient!
Maybe we should get back on a topic which is not "attacking  Maja and determining when she said what and why", don't you think?


----------



## Qcumber

I think GALBRAITH (the economist) has a passage in which he says Miss Jones in her class can't compete with the dubious appeal of knives, drugs and porn.


----------



## Qcumber

Genecks said:


> Given the chance to move to Europe, I would learn as many languages as soon as possible. Trust me. I bet if I was in Europe for about two months, I could quickly learn five language. I bet I could read and write those languages, too. I could probably do that on my own, too.


You are pulling our legs, aren't you?


----------



## emilymonster

The education here in England, I feel, is very narrow-minded. At the age of 13 we have to have decided which three subjects, along with a language, science, maths and English we want to take exams in in two years time and then, when those are completed, which 4 subjects we would like to study if we choose to go into the 6th form. 
I have heard that the American system gives more freedom to their students in that they study a wider depth of subjects for a longer time and they also don't have to study for exams constantly- does this make their education better? Which is more beneficial I cannot say as I have only lived in England and probably won't study in America.


----------



## JamesM

maja said:
			
		

> Maybe we should get back on a topic which is not "attacking Maja and determining when she said what and why", don't you think?



I'd be happy to. I have presented relevant information regarding the Serbian education system from an internationally-recognized body (The World Bank). You have neglected to comment on it entirely.

You have stated that the education systems in Southern Europe and some Slavic countries are superior to the American education system.  Your exact words were:




> But *a**ccording to my personal experience,* and those of my close friends, education in Europe is much, much harder, and more general whilst US education is more major-oriented and easier. For many people I know (that went to study in the states), finishing college was walk in a park and they were usually top of their class (bear in mind that they studied in a foreign language!!!).
> However, I do agree with those who said that we cannot look at Europe as a whole, and I can only speak of southern European countries (as well as some other Slavic states), basically ex-socialist countries who had very good education system




 Is the Serbian education system described in The World Bank report one of the education systems that you are contending is superior to the American education system? It seems hard to believe.


----------



## cuchuflete

Maja said:


> Yes but I DID edited my post!!! It was probably bad choice of words and I  delete it so there is no point in discussing it further!!!  I am not discussing it.  You asked where you had said it, so I quoted your own words to you.
> I said some PEOPLE think that (I didn't say I think that!!!), so you can't say  that it is "logical" to conclude that I think Americans are badly educated! And  all that was said in a context of PC.   You wrote:  "*I am not saying that such stand is not arrogant, but it is as it is." You didn't attribute that "it is as it is" to PC or to friends.  Those are your own words.  You cannot pretend them away because they are now inconvenient for you.  *But I don't want to go into that  discussion as more people might get offended.  I told you earlier that I took no offense.  You offered your own opinion.
> There is nothing offensive about holding a thought.
> You are taking them out of the context!!! How  convenient!  How convenient of you to destroy the original context, so that they may only be taken apart from it.   You could have written a retraction or correction, but instead you obliterated the text you had posted when a couple of people disagreed with it.
> Maybe we should get back on a topic which is not "attacking  Maja and determining when she said what and why", don't you think?  I have not attacked you at any point, nor do I have any reason to attack you.  We have a disagreement, as often happens in a conversation.  It is neither personal nor is it anything more than a difference of opinion.



This entire thread is full of Europeans lamenting the sorry state of European education in many countries, and of Americans lamenting the sorry state of much of American education.  Perhaps that is a sign that some or most or all of those participating here are fairly well educated, and can discern the differences between good education and bad.

If so, that would indicate, based on a very small sample of opinions, that there are educational problems in both geographies, and also that it is possible to get a good education in both.


----------



## JamesM

> If so, that would indicate, based on a very small sample of opinions, that there are educational problems in both geographies, and also that it is possible to get a good education in both.


 
I can agree with that wholeheartedly.


----------



## ireney

Maja said:


> However, I do  agree with those who said that we cannot look at Europe as a whole, and I can  only speak of southern European countries (as well as some other Slavic states),  basically ex-socialist countries who had very good education  system.​





Count one southern European country (though not an ex-socialist one unless you believe that PASOK _is_ a socialist party   If you do, blame the socialist party for much that is wrong in our educational system; it was the governing party for the biggest part of two decades ) out . I belong to the group of those lamenting the level of education in their own country. Obviously it is possibly to get good education in a public school etc (look at me for example ) but don't get me started on what is wrong with education in Greece !​


----------



## gaer

The first post of this whole thread was loaded:



PianoMan said:


> What do you think about the quality of European education _*over*_ that of American education, especially on their emphasis of language learning?


The emphasis is mine. Doesn't that seem as though the whole thread started off with the presumption that European education is superior to education in the US?

I've seen serious problems with the educational system of every country I've examined. I have friends in several countries who are teachers. I'm a teacher. Although some problems are unique to each individual country, there are many problems that are the same.

I had wanted to participate in this discussion, but the vicious personal attacks, quite typical of discussions in Cultural Affairs by the way, has disgusted me.

I fully expect this to be removed, probably with no explanation, because I have dared say, in public, that many people need to treat these debates as discussions, not blood-sports with the intention of ripping other members to pieces.

But in case this is not removed, I have one request: could we PLEASE talk about education in Europe and the US in a way that might point toward potential solutions? 

And would the people who are locked in combat please continue their personal battles in PMs?

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> I'd be happy to. I have presented relevant information regarding the Serbian education system from an internationally-recognized body (The World Bank). You have neglected to comment on it entirely.



"Internationally recognised" — what a great expression. It almost implies that they know what they're talking about. 

I could bring to this discussion the opinions of, say, the International Rugby Board - another internationally-recognised body, but that wouldn't automatically add any weight to their remarks.

The World Bank has an agenda and it is a tool of some of the biggest states. The US has about one-sixth of its votes. It's demands on client countries are always pro free-market. Perhaps it is not the most ideal body to comment on international standards of education.


----------



## Hockey13

Maja said:


> No I didn't!!! I said that according to my experience, education in Europe is harder!!! Harder doesn't automatically mean superior. I personally think that I wasted a lot of time learning 1000 pages of philosophy for an exam!!! Hard yes, better no. See my point? Finally???​


 
You clearly have not been to Wake Forest University, my friend, or as we like to call it, Work Forest. I know plenty of high schools that are extremely difficult as well. What good does it do to generalize an education system when it all comes down to which path you take through it? I went to a hard high school and I go to an extremely difficult university and nationally-renowned university.

*PS:* I fully agree with Gary's post.


----------



## Westerner

gaer said:


> The first post of this whole thread was loaded:
> 
> 
> The emphasis is mine. Doesn't that seem as though the whole thread started off with the presumption that European education is superior to education in the US?
> 
> I've seen serious problems with the educational system of every country I've examined. I have friends in several countries who are teachers. I'm a teacher. Although some problems are unique to each individual country, there are many problems that are the same.
> 
> I had wanted to participate in this discussion, but the vicious personal attacks, quite typical of discussions in Cultural Affairs by the way, has disgusted me.
> 
> I fully expect this to be removed, probably with no explanation, because I have dared say, in public, that many people need to treat these debates as discussions, not blood-sports with the intention of ripping other members to pieces.
> 
> But in case this is not removed, I have one request: could we PLEASE talk about education in Europe and the US in a way that might point toward potential solutions?
> 
> And would the people who are locked in combat please continue their personal battles in PMs?
> 
> Gaer



I completely agree. It's like that joke Colbert often uses (George Bush - great president, or Greatest president?) - as the tone of the original post had a large impact on how the thread itself took off.

However, in the event that this post isn't deleted either, I believe each system offers advantages and disadvantages, and as a former student of both, I believe we have much to learn from, and much to offer to, each other.


----------



## gaer

Hockey13 said:


> I know plenty of high schools that are extremely difficult as well. What good does it do to generalize an education system when it all comes down to which path you take through it? I went to a hard high school and I go to an extremely difficult university and nationally-renowned university.


I will only comment on the US, with some emphasis on my own state.

Although Florida's public schools probably had lower standards than those of at least a few other states in the US at the time I attended them (starting in 1954), I believe I received a solid education.

I also attended "white schools"—this area was totally segregated until the late 1960s.

I then went to FSU. FSU may have had a couple "token blacks", but it was basically a "white school". I don't even remember many Hispanics. I was there from 1966 to 1971.

When I first attended public school in the 1950s, we had "white" and "colored" drinking fountains. Jim Crow was alive and well in South Florida.

Perhaps those were the good ol' days for those who were not discriminated against. For blacks/African-Americans—still called "colored people here" at that time—it must have been hell.

Now, let's fast-forward.

Each week I teach several black children who are the grandchildren of people approximately my age who were not allowed to attend my schools. I teach about 50 people at any given time. About 10 are black. Three are adults, about my age.

People who have not lived in the US, even younger people who have been born here, are often ignorant of the incredible social upheaval that began or at least accelerated beginning around 1968 or so. We have Haitians, Cubans, Jamaicans and many people from South American. A high percentage of the adults I meet are struggling with English. Many do not speak English at all and use their children to interpret for them.

What has happened to our public schools?

They have been incredibly challenged by a changing society that has not yet figured out how to be fair to those who have almost nothing without holding back those who have a lot.

Some problems are caused by thick-headed administrators who are totally out of touch with the problems teachers face.

Many problems are caused by a government that undervalues education—why else are classes so large? Why else are teachers' salaries so low? Why else do teachers (at least here) see benefits disappearing?

But a lot of our problems are caused by the fact that after several hundred years of slavery and repression, a sincere effort has been made to establish racial equality in less than 50 years.

A lot of our problems are caused by the continued immigration of fairly large groups of people from many countries who are poor and know little or no English. However, I personally believe that the fact that the US is still becoming more diverse by being relatively open to the challenges of people coming here from all over the world is its greatest strength.

Things have gotten worse for those who used to be the favored minority, the WASPS. I'm one of those people. But things have improved greatly for many other groups of people. Because I believe in fairness, I believe that things are actually better if you consider ALL the people in the US.

We still have huge problems to overcome.

If I only cared about people such as those in my family and the friends I grew up with, I would say that education has gone to hell. The average kid I teach (talking about this area) most definitely knows less than I did and my friends did, when we were in the age range of my students (those who are not adults).

However, I have also lived long enough to see people who were not even allowed to use the same drinking fountains as the "favored whites" come to lessons, take private lessons from me, and excel.

My students used to be almost exclusively "white". Now I have a "rainbow group", and they are the best group of students I've ever taught.

Even though my students who go to public schools are weaker in English, math, history, science, etc. (subjects I don't teach), they are not weaker in what I teach. 

The problem is not the kids. It's the schools.

BUT:

There are REASONS why the problems are coming from the public schools. The schools themselves are _*facing*_ gigantic growing pains. Never before, at least in this country, have public teachers had to face so many nearly impossible challenges.

In my experience, young Americans have the same potential they have always had but face the problem of an educational system that has changed so radically since the late 1960s that it has not yet caught up.

I would suggest that it is only fair for those who have not faced the challenges we are now facing in the US to consider the enormous changes that have occurred during the latter part of the 20th century, continuing into this century and take that into consideration.

For those who are rich, there are still private schools and prestigious colleges that I believe rival any schools in the world—but for a huge price.

For a few gifted students, scholarships and grants may allow them to attend these schools without coming from rich families.

The rest of our American students face incredible challenges, at least in some states, and they will continue to receive an education that is inferior to what they might have received in the past until countless social problems are at least partially solved.

I'm not a flag-waver, and I'm very critical of the US, my country, whenever I think it does not live up to its potential.

However, I have to say that the change in attitudes towards race/color within my lifetime —and all that goes with this—is very nearly a miracle.

At least that's my view.

Gaer


----------



## shoam

A family I know in Seattle: 

Dad stayed in Spain and mom came to the US with two kids.
Kids went to School for a few years and visited dad during the summer.

They came back home, to their mom and told her:

- MOM! We want to go back to Spain and live there. 

Mom said "OK"

- But, first, we want to finish high school...

- Why?

- Because it's so much easier here in Seattle !!!!!


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> Just as a point of clarification, I think most AP teachers in the U.S. public schools would give their right arm to have a student load of only 75 a day. In our local high school, which is highly rated, the daily student load for an AP teacher is often 300 or more (7 periods * 43-50 students per period.)


 
That's Not the point.  It was an example.  However, to make happy   let's change the number to the 300 you said.


----------



## Poetic Device

gaer said:


> The first post of this whole thread was loaded:
> 
> 
> The emphasis is mine. Doesn't that seem as though the whole thread started off with the presumption that European education is superior to education in the US?
> 
> I've seen serious problems with the educational system of every country I've examined. I have friends in several countries who are teachers. I'm a teacher. Although some problems are unique to each individual country, there are many problems that are the same.
> 
> I had wanted to participate in this discussion, but the vicious personal attacks, quite typical of discussions in Cultural Affairs by the way, has disgusted me.
> 
> I fully expect this to be removed, probably with no explanation, because I have dared say, in public, that many people need to treat these debates as discussions, not blood-sports with the intention of ripping other members to pieces.
> 
> But in case this is not removed, I have one request: could we PLEASE talk about education in Europe and the US in a way that might point toward potential solutions?
> 
> And would the people who are locked in combat please continue their personal battles in PMs?
> 
> Gaer


 
I agree with you whole-heartedly.  

It's funny that you said this.  I was talking with Fenix for fear of him taking what I was saying as an insult, and because of it we wound up (i think) having a little more of an understanding:



> To be honest, one of the biggest problems in education as I see it, is the lack of respect that teachers get in society. This is reflected in the low pay of teachers, and these factors are also reasons why we don't attract more good teachers.
> 
> I think that'll be my next post.
> 
> Cheers!


 
I don't know if you did post this.  I looked, but I didn't see it.  I'm sorry if this is a repeat.  In any event, here is my response:

I do have a name. LOL Sorry. It's Jen.

In any event, I understand what you are saying, (and this among other things will be in my next post) and I agree with you on the respect aspect. I have always said God bless teachers, especially if they have kids of their own. I wouldn't be able to put up with other people's brats and then come home to my own.

I don't believe the cause for all of the teachers that are bad to be the same. I believe thatthere are some that are poor teacher just because they are, I think some had the system beat them down too much, and I think there are the few that try too hard and burn themselves out.

Humbly yours,
Jen


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> That's Not the point. It was an example. However, to make happy  let's change the number to the 300 you said.


 
The only reason I noted the difference in the number of student was to point out a workload that some people may not be aware of.  If one is picturing 75 students a day, that might sound manageable.  I am personally astounded that teachers are expected to have personal interaction with, and interest in, 300 people a day.  I don't know any other job that requires that.

I'm honestly not sure what what the point is, at this point.     I think I will sit the rest of this one out as a participant.  I haven't been doing a very good job as one anyway.

I look forward to reading where this discussion goes as it develops.


----------



## Qcumber

I suggest you visit US expat sites in Europe. They often have a thread on education, and what they say is generally interesting.


----------



## TRG

gaer said:


> I will only comment on the US, with some emphasis on my own state.
> 
> Many problems are caused by a government that undervalues education—why else are classes so large? Why else are teachers' salaries so low? Why else do teachers (at least here) see benefits disappearing?


 
By government, I'm assuming you mean the federal government, the one in Washington, DC. For my part, I wish that all of the money that goes to the federal government for the purpose of education would be given back to the state and local governments to be spent, hopefully, on education. I firmly believe that if people at the state and local government level are not able to make the commitment or figure out how to adequately educate their children then no one in Washington DC is going to be able to do it for them. In fact, I would be in favor of eliminating entirely the federal department of education. Needless to say, I don't think we need NCLB.

On the general question of funding, it is often said that we do not spend enough money on education. I'm skeptical of this, but perhaps someone here knows about general levels of funding in the USA vs Europe.


----------



## Thomsen

shoam said:


> A family I know in Seattle:
> 
> Dad stayed in Spain and mom came to the US with two kids.
> Kids went to School for a few years and visited dad during the summer.
> 
> They came back home, to their mom and told her:
> 
> - MOM! We want to go back to Spain and live there.
> 
> Mom said "OK"
> 
> - But, first, we want to finish high school...
> 
> - Why?
> 
> - Because it's so much easier here in Seattle !!!!!


 
Easier does not necessarily connote worse.  "My teachers here are better, it is easier for me to learn."  "I don't understand why my teachers give me such tedious assignments, they make it so hard to get anything done."  Not saying that is the connotation, but you should really explain your intention in posting that...


----------



## jess oh seven

Ok I'm going to be honest and admit that I haven't read the entire thread because I don't have the motivation to do so...

But as someone who has been educated in BOTH systems, I can say that each has its advantages....

Under the American system there is very little pressure in the form of examinations. Rarely if ever do examinations cover the entire course or count for the majority of the overall grade, and often they are very informal. However, in the Scottish system, the final exams are pretty much the be-all and end-all of the course, creating a huge amount of stress and pressure which could easily be eliminated by having smaller exams/tests throughout the year instead. I NEVER ONCE had to study in my whole four years of American middle/high school and I got very good grades.... completely different situation in the UK.

With regards to general education, I missed out on a lot of European history as I had to study American history instead... well, we did have a class called "World History" but all I can remember from that is a load of guff about the Tigris-Euprhates valley. 

I noticed huge discrepancies between English classes as well, with teachers in the American system failing to explain/demonstrate HOW to analyse/write critically about literature and expecting you do just somehow innately KNOW. When I moved to my Scottish school I was completely lost in my English class at first as I didn't have a clue as to what was expected of me, but we read and studied texts together as a class and I certainly gained more insight and understanding of the material.

One thing that I really missed about American schooling was the lack of EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES in my Scottish school... I'm not sure if all schools in the UK are the same, but our options for extracurricular activities were limited to football and field hockey. WHAT? I had just come from a school where I was involved in choir, step dancing and yearbook, so it was a huge shock to me that there weren't any clubs I could join. I ended up forming a choir on my own with the help of a music teacher though...  nobody else would've put in the effort! Perhaps there is too much focus on these activities in American schools and too little in UK schools, but for sure there should really be a balance between academia and socialisation!!


----------



## Poetic Device

Do European schools teach the history of the United States at all?  Is the U.S. the only one that somewhat refuses to acknowledge world history (aside from ancient history)?


----------



## distille

Poetic Device said:


> Do European schools teach the history of the United States at all?  Is the U.S. the only one that somewhat refuses to acknowledge world history (aside from ancient history)?




From what i remember of my school years in France I heard in the class room about the US independance, the boston tea party, very little about the civil war, quite a lot about the invention of new industrial methods, the economic rise of the US, the crisis of the thirties, the cold war period, the role of the US in South America. But US contemporary history was part of the bigger picture: world wars, world economic changes, the cold war, international institutions. 

I had to study US geography too, we had to fill in blank maps of the US with the 'sun belt, rust-belts, urban centres, agricultural areas and other stuff i have forgotten. I remember having to memorise at least five different maps of the US. 
But we also studied russian geography (less extensively) and my final geography exam at high school was about the move of China from socialist economy to capitalist economy.

I know only the French system so I can't compare. I would say it is a rather good system for general culture, french, history, geography, literature and maths and sciences...as long as you are a good student, easy to manage for teachers. When you fall behind....teachers don't have time to try another pedagogy to help you understand.
French schooling is quite poor when it comes to teaching languages.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Do European schools teach the history of the United States at all?  Is the U.S. the only one that somewhat refuses to acknowledge world history (aside from ancient history)?



Do you mean as a subject in its own right, or as a major chunk of 'world history', or just a passing reference in a crowded curriculum?

I don't see why US History (capitalised) would be a thing Irish students should be required to concern themselves with, there's more European History to concern them and to be relevant to them - and then there's so much other 'world history' to be covered to give them a rounded global view or the past. Why would US history warrant a special segment or segments to itself?


----------



## Thomsen

maxiogee said:


> Do you mean as a subject in its own right, or as a major chunk of 'world history', or just a passing reference in a crowded curriculum?
> 
> I don't see why US History (capitalised) would be a thing Irish students should be required to concern themselves with, there's more European History to concern them and to be relevant to them - and then there's so much other 'world history' to be covered to give them a rounded global view or the past. Why would US history warrant a special segment or segments to itself?


 
You're misinterpreting her statements perhaps.  She is saying as is sometime the case, that the US educational system is sorely lacking in non-US history.  I would say about 90% of the pedagogy deals with US history (and the interwtined history of colonial England/France etc) and ignores the rest of the world.  For example, I took Modern European History and that is rather unusual.  But even so in the same time period I took World Cultures for all the rest of the world history.  I took 4 times as much US history alone!  It is a tremendous lack IMHO.

It does seem however that perhaps not much more time is spent on US history in Ireland than we spend on Irish history here?  Perhaps because so much of US history is already known or easily picked up?


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> Do you mean as a subject in its own right, or as a major chunk of 'world history', or just a passing reference in a crowded curriculum?
> 
> I don't see why US History (capitalised) would be a thing Irish students should be required to concern themselves with, there's more European History to concern them and to be relevant to them - and then there's so much other 'world history' to be covered to give them a rounded global view or the past. Why would US history warrant a special segment or segments to itself?


 
Well, that's what I am trying to figure out.  It's understandable if a country pays a little more attention to its own history, but to the extent that America does?  I had a poor world history class as well.  With the question at hand, I mean World History as a part of history class.  Just history in general...  I don't make sense, do I?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Do European schools teach the history of the United States at all?(aside from ancient history)?





maxiogee said:


> Do you mean as a subject in its own right, or as a major chunk of 'world history', or just a passing reference in a crowded curriculum?





Thomsen said:


> You're misinterpreting her statements perhaps.



I don't think it is possible to misinterpret her direct question? But, to be sure I didn't, I asked for clarification.




Thomsen said:


> I took 4 times as much US history alone!  It is a tremendous lack IMHO.


I would have thought that, for an American, US history is more than four times as important as 'world history'.
I accept that we all need to know 'our place in the world' - it's seriously important - but more important yet is that we have a firm knowledge of 'who we are' and 'where we came from'. For most of us, anywhere, that can be pretty conclusively wrapped up in the detailed history of our own country over the last 500 years or so. Knowing our own country *that *well will automatically inform us of our relationships with the rest of the world.

Were education about what it ought to be about - producing well-rounded people with an awareness of who they are and the ability to think for themselves - then I would agree that 'World History' ought to be a major part of any student's curriculum, but it's not. Education is about getting people ready for further education, and then about getting them ready for employment as 'productive units' in society. The jobs market increasingly dictates what universities offer their students and the universities in turn increasingly dictate to the schools how they want the students to be _presented _to them.
It's a shame, but it's all about money in the end. Teaching world history isn't perceived as something which is going to do a lot for the earning potential of a student.


----------



## fenixpollo

More information about history in school is available in the threads *History in School* and *American History: What were you taught?*


----------



## Thomsen

maxiogee said:


> For most of us, anywhere, that can be pretty conclusively wrapped up in the detailed history of our own country over the last 500 years or so. Knowing our own country *that *well will automatically inform us of our relationships with the rest of the world.


 
You would think so, but in the USA that is not the case at all. 

 Sorry if I put words in your mouth.


----------



## maxiogee

Thomsen said:


> You would think so, but in the USA that is not the case at all.




What? 
A student taking a *"detailed look"* at the history of America since 1500 wouldn't be "automatically informed of its relationships with the rest of the world"?
Surely not? 

I'm not talking about the _quality _of the existing history curriculum, I'm talking theoretically. God knows, Irish History teaching was woeful in the past and not is not too hot at present. My own son is just as unaware of Ireland's history since about 1940 as I was when I left school in the days of  black&white radio.
The point I was making was that history is about the local. What does an Irish student need with a detailing of the doings of the East India Company (important as it was to both British and Indian history)? Far more important to mention it in reference to the Irish who served in the British forces stationed there and elsewhere to back up 'John Company' (and other financial ventures) and impose its will on the populace.


----------



## Thomsen

maxiogee said:


> What?
> A student taking a *"detailed look"* at the history of America since 1500 wouldn't be "automatically informed of its relationships with the rest of the world"?
> Surely not?
> 
> *I'm not talking about the *_*quality* _of the existing history curriculum, I'm talking theoretically. God knows, Irish History teaching was woeful in the past and not is not too hot at present. My own son is just as unaware of Ireland's history since about 1940 as I was when I left school in the days of black&white radio.
> The point I was making was that history is about the local. What does an Irish student need with a detailing of the doings of the East India Company (important as it was to both British and Indian history)? Far more important to mention it in reference to the Irish who served in the British forces stationed there and elsewhere to back up 'John Company' (and other financial ventures) and impose its will on the populace.


 
And herein lies my misunderstanding.  I was talking about the Quality of American Education.


----------



## gaer

Maja said:


> But *according to my personal experience*, and those of my close friends, education in Europe is much, much harder, and more general whilst US education is more major-oriented and easier.


What is your personal experience regarding education in the US? Have you studied here in the US?

"Major-oriented" and "easier" have nothing to do with each other. Let me give you an example. My major was piano performance. When students major in performance, they have no time to stop studying and practicing. They have to pass a performance audition in order to be "cleared" to major in such a specific area. If they are successful, they begin intense practice immediately.

Your remarks made no sense to me because they were too general.


> For many people I know (that went to study in the states), finishing college was walk in a park and they were usually top of their class (bear in mind that they studied in a foreign language!!!).


What does "top of their class" mean? Do you mean "at the top of their class"? I would not be surpised to find out that many students who come here from other countries, perhaps even most, are excellent students. They would need either money, a lot of money in my opinion, or grants/subsidies to travel to the US and study here.

I've met some incredibly well-educated and intelligent students from several countries—in person. However, they told me that they were not typical of the average students in their own countries.

I've also "met" students from other countries through forums such as WR, much younger than I am of course, who have impressed me with their insight, sophistication, knowledge of the world, etc. However, they too have said that they are not typical of other students their age, who they say are far behind them in many ways.

As I've talked to students from around the world, I've found their concerns about education to be remarkably similar.

Gaer


----------



## shoam

Thomsen said:


> Easier does not necessarily connote worse. "My teachers here are better, it is easier for me to learn." "I don't understand why my teachers give me such tedious assignments, they make it so hard to get anything done." Not saying that is the connotation, but you should really explain your intention in posting that...


 
*COME ON!!!*
*Anyone knows how surprising it is for any immigrant in the US to realise how little a high school kids knows about many topics that are very well know by the same age kids in most of countries around the world. And I am ot only talking about first world...*
*Music?*
*Films?*

*And let's better not talk about languages!!!*


----------



## winklepicker

fenixpollo said:


> *How are our students fairing?*


 
Not too well, apparently!


----------



## cuchuflete

shoam said:


> *COME ON!!!*
> *Anyone knows how surprising it is for any immigrant in the US to realise how little a high school kids knows about many topics that are very well know by the same age kids in most of countries around the world. And I am ot only talking about first world...*
> *Music?*
> *Films?*
> 
> *And let's better not talk about languages!!!*



What should we understand your intention to be when you suggest we don't talk about languages, in a post with more than a few linguistic lapses?

Tell us more about "the same age kids in most countries around the world".  Are you referring to the countries in which secondary school attendence is required?  

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, many immigrant children arrive in the US with little education.  How would they know how little anyone knows, or how much?  What would be their standard of measure?  

Are your references to music and films supposed to suggest a lack or overabundance of knowledge?  On the part of which population?


If that post is an example of something other than sloppy thinking and poor exposition of generalities, it must be far too subtle for this American educated reader to discern.   A useful discussion generally begins with a hypothesis that is supported by more than an excess of exclamation marks.  

All of that said, you may have a point, but you have certainly not given anyone much reason to
believe your proposition.  I am limited by my failure to have traveled to most of the countries around the world, and have only met graduates from a few dozen countries.  Perhaps you could enlighten use with the results of your experience in meeting with or studying students from "most of countries around the world".


----------



## winklepicker

Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:

*87 percent* cannot find *Iraq*
*83 percent* cannot find *Afghanistan*
*76 percent* cannot find *Saudi Arabia*
*70 percent* cannot find *New Jersey*
*49 percent* cannot find *New York*
*11 percent* cannot find the *United States*

*CNN** on a *survey by National Geographic 

I'm not crowing though: Brits would probably score about the same.


----------



## gaer

winklepicker said:


> Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:
> 
> *87 percent* cannot find *Iraq*
> *83 percent* cannot find *Afghanistan*
> *76 percent* cannot find *Saudi Arabia*
> *70 percent* cannot find *New Jersey*
> *49 percent* cannot find *New York*
> *11 percent* cannot find the *United States*
> 
> *CNN** on a *survey by National Geographic
> 
> I'm not crowing though: Brits would probably score about the same.


Here is what shocks me. I would flunk a map test on the Middle East. But if I want to find out something, I know where to go to get the answer.

Today, if you have even a tiny bit of curiosity, it takes seconds to find information. In my opinion, students are not taught how to FIND things. Not just countries—information. THAT'S the worst thing that is happening!

I just read that more than 120 million people in the US now use broadband connections. Google Earth is available for free, and finally I have something I have always dreamed of: an expanding globe that allows me to see things as they really look.

My students don't even know this program exists. My relatives didn't know about it. When I show people the way you can find any (or almost any) country in the world, examine it's latitude and longitude, get an idea of it's climate, then link to other sites that will give you an overview, they are interested.

They are not SHOWN these things.

Education, in general, is not becoming more individualized. It is becoming, if anything, more geared to passing standaradized tests.

I think these tests are mind and soul killing.

I feel that American AND European education is not teaching people how to find things out for themselves. All our school systems spend so much time telling students what they need to learn and how they must demonstrate that they know exactly what they are TOLD is important that they spend almost zero time exploring for themselves.

Then, when they "finish school", learning stops.

I'll probably get shot for saying this, but I hated almost every moment I was in school until I finished public school and finally had the opportunity to study what *I* wanted to learn in the way *I* wanted to learn it.

I have incredible fun studying geography, politics, history, etc.—on my own!

Gaer


----------



## Hockey13

gaer said:


> I'll probably get shot for saying this, but I hated almost every moment I was in school until I finished public school and finally had the opportunity to study what *I* wanted to learn in the way *I* wanted to learn it.
> 
> I have incredible fun studying geography, politics, history, etc.—on my own!
> 
> Gaer


 
BANG! Just kidding..

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure I can be with you on hating every moment of public school. I think this depends heavily, like it does everywhere else in the world, on where you go to school. I went to Montclair High School in Montclair, NJ. I am an intense believer in the advantage *to every citizen* of a liberal arts education, but I understand that not every place is like where I grew up. I quote from the article:

_*MHS prides itself on the diversity of the school as students are given a relatively liberal education compared to many other public schools in the United States*, although this is probably due to the *unique liberal atmosphere of the town of Montclair* that has, since the early 1980s, attracted a significant amount of young, *wealthy New York City professionals* striving to get away from the activity of the city, but seeking to retain the progressive views one might find in its educational areas. Graduates of Montclair High School are often placed in some of the country's most prestigious universities._

As I went to college, I realized that my high school experience was not the norm. However, one must be extremely wary when generalizing about a place that is *as large as the United States*. I still don't understand the purpose of declaring US students stupid when so much of our population is diluted with country folk who live in relatively out of the way places and don't necessarily see the point in learning about the rest of the world when "putting food on their families" is so much more important. I can only imagine going to school in the middle of Mississippi when my entire life everyone has surrounded me with Christianity and a sense that immediate issues are more important than learning about some stupid symphony from some stupid German person who died 200 years ago.


----------



## Qcumber

Hockey13 said:


> As I went to college, I realized that my high school experience was not the norm. However, one must be extremely wary when generalizing about a place that is *as large as the United States*.


I agree with you. It's unfair. Every state should be dealt with separately.


----------



## Qcumber

Hockey13 said:


> I can only imagine going to school in the middle of Mississippi when my entire life everyone has surrounded me with Christianity and a sense that immediate issues are more important than learning about some stupid symphony from some stupid German person who died 200 years ago.


This may be due to prejudice against Europeans. 
Besides there are many unprosperous countries where a good education is regarded as the norm or countries that went through dire straits but still regarded it as important.


----------



## Hockey13

Qcumber said:


> This may be due to prejudice against Europeans.
> Besides there are many unprosperous countries where a good education is regarded as the norm or countries that went through dire straits but still regarded it as important.


 
Entirely possible. I'm just saying, though, that what was good and useful near New York City might be totally useless a world away in Mississippi. Circumstances are different, culture is totally different, and education may not be as emphasized. There are many places in the US that are very similar to the most educated places in Europe in terms of quality of education, but things change as rapidly as geography does.

I haven't read through every post, but has anyone discussed the issue of providing incentives to high school graduates to become teachers?


----------



## Qcumber

Anyway education in the US can't be that bad as your universities are of great repute, and many Europeans wish they had the same.


----------



## ElaineG

There is a fascinating article in this week's New Yorker, for those who have access to such, about trying to saving failing students in the Denver school system, a system where "80 percent of [the children in the school district] were minorities, including a huge number of Latino immigrants."

The article recounts the struggle to bring up standards and cut high-school drop out rates in this city, where: 1) many of the high school kids are needed by their families to work; 2) many of the kids' parents did not attend high school in their countries of origin; and 3) many of the parents are illegal and therefore avoid all contacts with their children's schools. 

I was struck by a quote in the article that echoed some of what Gaer has said earlier:



> The average high-school student today is weaker academically the average high-school student of 1950. _This phenomenon is often ascribed to declining standards and the degradation of culture, but democratization has been a factor_, too. We now expect public high schools to offer academics -- the foundation of college work -- to more, and more kinds of, children. _In the past twenty years, the number of high-school students who say that they expect to finish college has doubled, to more than 75%, with the largest gains shown by the urban poor_.


 
To speak about education in the United States as a single thing -- as if Hockey's (and my neighboring  ) privileged suburban high school, where educated, competitive parents stay on their children, and the school, to do the best in every area from academics to sports were in any way comparable to the Denver school system described in this article -- is almost useless.

It then becomes even _more useless_ to compare this aggregate to an aggregate European system, whatever that might be.

Again, though, I suspect that the outstanding education that Hockey (and I, many years before) had in some of the nation's more affluent public high schools at least holds its own against European public high schools of similar demographics.

The interesting question to me is whether _any system_ has cracked the puzzle of effectively educating the urban poor, and in particular, the immigrant poor. From what I read, London, Paris, Milan -- you name it, are struggling with the same issues the U.S. is. I read a series of articles recently about how immigrant children in some of Italy's cities are getting a "Serie B" education. I can only imagine that the kids who were burning cars in the banlieue last year weren't doing that on breaks from reading the 4th volume of A la recherche...


----------



## Etcetera

winklepicker said:


> Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:
> 
> *87 percent* cannot find *Iraq*
> *83 percent* cannot find *Afghanistan*
> *76 percent* cannot find *Saudi Arabia*
> *70 percent* cannot find *New Jersey*
> *49 percent* cannot find *New York*
> *11 percent* cannot find the *United States*
> 
> *CNN** on a *survey by National Geographic
> 
> I'm not crowing though: Brits would probably score about the same.


I wonder what results would Russians show...
*I* can find all those states (and cities) on the map, but I was really interested in geography at school, and I look at the map of the world quite often. 
As for history - we had two separate courses at school, World History and History of Russia. I didn't like it, frankly speaking. We studied World History for a year, then we had a year of History of Russia, then we returned to World History, then we had History of Russia again... And as a result, even now I have some difficulties with synchronising the two "histories". For example, when I am trying to imagine that the Risorgimento was taking place in Italy at about the same time as the Crimean War in Russia, I feel just surprised.


----------



## winklepicker

Hockey13 said:


> immediate issues are more important than learning about some stupid symphony from some stupid German person who died 200 years ago.


 
I would suggest that your comment tells us more about you than it does about the German person. Just because people are dead and foreign does not mean they have nothing to offer us. Nothing we learn is wasted - however irrelevant it may seem to the childish mind. When the student decides what is and is not appropriate to learn, we're well on the way to dangerous ignorance.

That especially applies to history. If certain people had remembered their history the Iraq debacle might possibly have been averted.


----------



## ElaineG

winklepicker said:


> I would suggest that your comment tells us more about you than it does about the German person. Just because people are dead and foreign does not mean they have nothing to offer us. Nothing we learn is wasted - however irrelevant it may seem to the childish mind. When the student decides what is and is not appropriate to learn, we're well on the way to dangerous ignorance.
> 
> That especially applies to history. If certain people had remembered their history the Iraq debacle might possibly have been averted.


 
Winklepicker, I think you entirely misread Hockey's post.  Hockey was trying to put himself in the shoes of someone who did not have his educational opportunities, but was instead from a small town in the south and whose main concerns were Christianity and day-to-day economic survival:



> country folk who live in relatively out of the way places and don't necessarily see the point in learning about the rest of the world when "putting food on their families" is so much more important. I can only imagine going to school in the middle of Mississippi when my entire life everyone has surrounded me with Christianity and a sense that immediate issues are more important than learning about some stupid symphony from some stupid German person who died 200 years ago.


 
His comments about the "German person" were from the perspective of that (imagined) person.


----------



## Qcumber

As regards immigrant children, I remember reading a book by a great American specialist of language teaching, Craken (not sure about the spelling.)

He observed that if the child is not taught English, but allowed to attend all the classes in English, and let do what he/she can, in about 9 months (a striking figure!), the child is able to speak like the average American child of his age. 

He insisted that it was a mistake to compel the child to learn English and say things in English from the very start. He compared the levels reached in both cases and noticed that in this latter case children do not speak English very well, and will keep making the same mistakes on and on.

What follows is mine.

Then the greater the proportion of immigrant children of the same origin in a given class, the more difficult it will be for them to progress in English because their tend to talk among themselves, say, in Spanish, and help one another with what is being taught in English.

If the whole class is made up of, say, Mexican children, they will have no English role model to take after, and they will learn very little from lessons taught in English. So the best is to have their lessons taught in Spanish by native Spanish teachers, and teach them English step by step as a foreign language, but at a fairly intensive rate; let's say 1 period in the morning and 1 period in the afternoon.


----------



## Hockey13

winklepicker said:


> I would suggest that your comment tells us more about you than it does about the German person. Just because people are dead and foreign does not mean they have nothing to offer us. Nothing we learn is wasted - however irrelevant it may seem to the childish mind. When the student decides what is and is not appropriate to learn, we're well on the way to dangerous ignorance.
> 
> That especially applies to history. If certain people had remembered their history the Iraq debacle might possibly have been averted.


 
See Elaine's post. As I am German, I thought my choice of a German composer would have made my out-of-body comment perfectly obvious.


----------



## winklepicker

Hockey13 said:


> See Elaine's post. As I am German, I thought my choice of a German composer would have made my out-of-body comment perfectly obvious.


 
Duh. Sorry everyone! I didn't think that sounded like hockey.


----------



## djchak

winklepicker said:


> I would suggest that your comment tells us more about you than it does about the German person. Just because people are dead and foreign does not mean they have nothing to offer us. Nothing we learn is wasted - however irrelevant it may seem to the childish mind. When the student decides what is and is not appropriate to learn, we're well on the way to dangerous ignorance.
> 
> That especially applies to history. If certain people had remembered their history the Iraq debacle might possibly have been averted.



I think you misunderstand.

It's not about history, it's about pragmatism.

I don't know enough about European education to know if most of their schools are pragmatic.

I know, I know, this is a generalization. But it does seem like having students study for one big final exam, instead of breaking it up, and adding sports/arts subjects seems a bit redundant.


----------



## Poetic Device

Ithink that not only is it redundant but it causes the kids to be more inclined to drop out (because of the ever so boring curriculum).


----------



## laurahya

I would imagine that financing plays a role in higher education. Some way back someone mentioned that only two non-US universities muscled their way into the top-20 list, and they were Oxford and Cambridge, which have the international reputation required to attract top teachers and researchers and benefit from a centuries-old legacy of financing from an old-boys network. Throughout much of Europe, education is either free or is paid for at a nominal rate. Things were very similar in England and Wales for a long time, and even after the introduction of tuition fees the price was nothing like it is in the US. I paid around £4500 _in total_ for a four-year course. (Things changed last year, but that's a separate issue!)

Don't the vastly higher sums paid by US students ensure a higher quality of equipment, as well as the possibility of teaching a wider range of subjects and attracting the best staff because they can expect to receive higher salaries and benefit from the better facilities? Obviously this only applies to the so-called 'better' universities of the US, but I don't think it can be discounted as a factor in determining the quality of higher education.


----------



## iaf

_(First of all, I'd like to apologize for my bad english... oh, it's so long ago...)

_If we are comparing education in different continents, it's sure we will fall into an extreme generalization. I've read many forists putting the accent at the differences in several european education systems - well, America is also a wide *continent* with extremely different caracteristics from north to south .

 Perhaps we could specify some points of discussion, for example the teaching of foreign languages. _Very_ generally spoken, I think there really is a stronger tendency in the european continent to a multilingual education. Might be there are historical, cultural or geographic reasons for it.

But the economical aspect mentioned before lead me to another reflection that, in my opinion, is very important to contemplate: When we talk about education, do we refere to the general level of the society? Or is it just about an intellectual elite? What for do we "educate"? I think the education policies of the different countries differe in this point.

Personally, I can only talk about two systems I really know, the german one and the argentinian. Comparing both, I found that the german system tends fairly to a minority of "exclusive, high-leveled citizens", while the argentinian system (even admitting the severe deterioration in the last decades) keeps the concept of "socially including education".

_(Uff... I hope you get to understand the main ideas... )_
Greetings, saludos,
iaf.


----------



## vikramkr

In every country I've been to, there seems to be a larger emphasis on education than in America. Students in these countries really understand how important it is for them to receive a good education. The bottom line is that Americans do not put enough value on education as some in other cultures do.

Oh, and why in the world isn't language learning emphasized in America? We're surrounded by French and Spanish speakers on both sides of the border. We also start teaching foreign languages too late in the education system. Everyone knows that learning a foreign language is much easier if you start as a child, so I don't understand why there isn't emphasis on this subject in elementary or middle schools.

Finally, English and history are emphasized more than math and science in American schooling systems. What's up with that?


----------



## winklepicker

My view is that the US has some of the world's most able and educated people. But as with wealth, the educational differential between the top and the bottom is extreme: it also has some of the developed world's most poorly educated people.

There is a sturdy and admirable American tradition of self-reliance. However, this brings with it inherent drawbacks: the gun control issue is one, and another is the lack of educational and welfare provision for its less privileged citizens. The US has traditionally been more right wing than other first world countries; the European perspective is that bare naked capitalism alone cannot provide for the welfare of citizens. Its excesses give us Enron-style corruption, combined with an inhuman view of the citizenry as cannon-fodder employees and gullible consumers. This tends to undermine values such as pride in a job well done, honour in dealings, and so forth.

I think the American education system is as it is because economic necessity has never forced it to be anything else. Why bother learning a foreign language when 1/3 of the world's trade takes place INSIDE your own country? If Johnny Foreigner wants to trade with the world's largest market, then he should learn to speak the language of its people.

Historically, its wealth has allowed the US to operate in this way: I seriously doubt that this situation will continue much longer. The US will either have to solve its education problems and bring up the level of the lowest, or accept relative economic decline. (NB: The Chinese are learning English in droves!) Hamish McRae is very interesting on this in his book _20/20_.

Having said all that, my visits to the States have shown me that the picture we receive of America outside its borders is far from the whole truth. We should not judge too much on what we foreigners see of the country from outside. 

Lastly, all the world - and myself included - have a love-hate relationship with the US: whilst we deprecate its games of weltpolitik we adopt its values and lifestyles eagerly. Call us hypocrites then.


----------



## Hockey13

vikramkr said:


> Finally, English and history are emphasized more than math and science in American schooling systems. What's up with that?


 
Since when? I took an equal amount of courses in both subjects before going to Wake Forest, where I took geology, astronomy, biology, British literature, American literature, German literature (in German), Italian literature (in Italian), European history since 1500, etc., and a whole host of economics classes that are predominantly math, but also closely tied into history. I personally don't see the diversion.

*Edit*: Nice post, Winkle.


----------



## vikramkr

Hockey13 said:


> Since when? I took an equal amount of courses in both subjects before going to Wake Forest (where I took geology, astronomy, biology, British literature, American literature, German literature (in German), Italian literature (in Italian), European history since 1500, etc., and a whole host of economics classes that are predominantly math, but also closely tied into history. I personally don't see the diversion.
> 
> *Edit*: Nice post, Winkle.



Sorry for making a generalisation. The schools _I have been to_ have always required me to take more humanities classes than math and science.


----------



## Hockey13

vikramkr said:


> Sorry for making a generalisation. The schools _I have been to_ have always required me to take more humanities classes than math and science.


 
This is interesting. I can't say that this has been my experience when speaking to people about their high schools. In fact, most prestigious colleges require that you have a certain amount of literature/science/etc. classes in order to apply. It would be interesting to see the statistics on those, but it might be skewed to the humanities side since many prestigious colleges are more focused on liberal arts than specific sciences (the presumption being that humanities induce thought process learning whereas sciences induce specific learning).


----------



## Qcumber

vikramkr said:


> Sorry for making a generalisation. The schools _I have been to_ have always required me to take more humanities classes than math and science.


US expat families in continental Europe often report their kids don't have much difficulty learning the new language - a pleasant surprise - while they found it hard to cope with maths with what they had learned in America. The syllabuses are different. That's all.


----------



## Musical Chairs

I think in the US, it really depends on where you live. I'm happy with my high school education but I know some areas around me are a lot worse in comparison.


----------



## Caitlin234

I believe it depends on several factors, including the following:

1.  If a student attends public schools, the quality of the public-school system in his or her area.

2.  Parental involvement (or lack thereof) and a student's dedication to his or her studies.  I know students who attended decent public schools, took their studies seriously, and received a better overall education than those who attended elite private schools and slacked off.

Just my $0.02.   

~ Caiti


----------

