# Is USA education "bad"?



## gorbatzjov

To my opinion and experience, (public) high school in the USA is really bad. I lived for a while in Oregon with a hostfamily and their daughter couldn't go to school on Friday's because the State didn't have enough money!!! And that's the USA we're talking about, not Ruanda or Ghana.

The Universities are among the best of the world - according to different rankings. Some thoughts:
- Especially private univerisities are quoted as very good. But how many people can pay the thousands of dollars tuition fee? Doesn't this ultra-liberalisation of education make it bad, or at least less good. It sure brings down the average educational level of the country...
- Rankings are mainly done by American newspapers, politicians, ... or at least rankings are made by American standards, not European or Asian standards.

Any more thoughts/ideas?


----------



## judkinsc

Having classes on Friday cancelled at that school sounds really odd.  I've never heard of something like that before.
Public education isn't the greatest, but it depends on the area.  Some are better, some are worse.  It strives for a general level of education for everyone.

There's an enormous range of universities.  Some are better than others.  Typically, you can take out loans from the government to pay for your education, then pay it back after you graduate.

Math isn't pushed as much in most American schools, calculus/trigonometry are often not required until college.  The actual grammatical teaching of English is sadly lacking as well.

All in all, though, it's not that bad.  Suggestions for improvement will certainly be considered.


----------



## Outsider

Earlier thread: Your Country's Education System.


----------



## TStadt

Having been raised here and attended American public schools, sadly, I am of the opnion that our school system best prepares us in the fight to be (or remain) an economic super-power rather than to be intellectually competitve or equal with the rest of the modern world. I cannot tell you how many times I have met students and young adults from England, France, Japan, Russia (and many other countries) who are academically leaps and bounds ahead of their American counterparts.


----------



## BasedowLives

> I lived for a while in Oregon with a hostfamily and their daughter couldn't go to school on Friday's because the State didn't have enough money!



That's very strange....I've never heard of that happening.  The state didn't have enough money to pay the teachers for 5 days a week, so they went 4?  



> But how many people can pay the thousands of dollars tuition fee?


I don't know if you know this, but almost all public universities cost thousands of dollars to attend...the one i'm currently attending will probably end up costing more than $20,000 overall by the time i'm done.


----------



## langalejandro

I don't belive it.


----------



## tvdxer

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> To my opinion and experience, (public) high school in the USA is really bad. I lived for a while in Oregon with a hostfamily and their daughter couldn't go to school on Friday's because the State didn't have enough money!!! And that's the USA we're talking about, not Ruanda or Ghana.
> 
> The Universities are among the best of the world - according to different rankings. Some thoughts:
> - Especially private univerisities are quoted as very good. But how many people can pay the thousands of dollars tuition fee? Doesn't this ultra-liberalisation of education make it bad, or at least less good. It sure brings down the average educational level of the country...
> - Rankings are mainly done by American newspapers, politicians, ... or at least rankings are made by American standards, not European or Asian standards.
> 
> Any more thoughts/ideas?



I think the fact that American universities attract huge numbers of students from all over the world, and would do so even more if visa requirements were not as strict, is enough of a sign of foreign approval.

As for tuition fees, a huge percentage of the American middle class can afford even private universities because of scholarships and federal aid.  Unless they receive a "full ride" (complete) scholarship, most students take out student loans. 

Most American high school students attend school on Fridays.  I find that rather strange that you mentioned that.  I do agree that public schools need improvement, however.


----------



## Isotta

I was hesitant to respond, as I dislike generally dismissive words like "bad" (and especially "evil") used thus in discussions. I find the more I know something, calling it "bad" or "good" becomes fallacious. What is "bad?" Illiteracy? Lack of world view? Poor sense of ethics? Frequent presence of a(n American) football team? Too general? Too specialised? 

I once tutored math and English literature to a high school freshman (year 10) who attended an inner-city school. Seventeen myself, I was astounded to find she could barely read. I had heard such things, but to see it was another thing. So how does one attempt to explain "biting one's thumb" from the opening scene of _Romeo and Juliet_ to a barely literate person? She did not even see the relevance of the play, nor did she have any notion of context.

So yes, American education even at the high school level can neglect. I've found this happens in many countries, though the degree may very. I've met a French person who didn't know who Henri IV was. On the other side of the spectrum, I've met Italian doctors who know the Satyricon. Though I think children in America walk away from high school knowing less of what they should know than they tend to in Italy, for example.

You cited a child who couldn't go to school on Fridays in Oregon because the state didn't have enough money. I've never heard of that happening in the U.S., but I'll take your word. Recently I had a similar experience in France. The last three sessions of my English literature class were cancelled because the French government did not alot enough funds to this particular state university. The university in turn could not pay the English literature professors for the last three weeks of classes, so they were just plain cancelled. Is French education bad? Well yes, and no, and then maybe, and maybe not, and then not at all and sort of at the same time.

My education in the United States was leagues better than that which I obtained at any school I attended elsewhere. Though every year of it has cost money. In fact, I returned to the United States from Asia to go to a particular American high school. 

I'd like to add that public universities in the United States also tend to be very good, though a student might have to be more motivated and independent, depending.

Perhaps you could specify exactly what you were asking? 

Z.


----------



## fenixpollo

"Bad"

... compared to other countries? I don't know. Very difficult to quantify.

...compared to where we should be? Yes. Bad. Very very very bad. Unequivocally. 

Of course, _my_ idea of where we should be is very different from G.W. Bush's idea: 





> No Child Left Behind


 or TStadt's idea: 





> I am of the opnion that our school system best prepares us in the fight to be (or remain) an economic super-power


 I don't think our educational system comes close to reaching T's lofty goal, and is even further from W's.

As far as schools closing for lack of funds, I would believe it in extraordinary circumstances. In my desert home, for example, one reason that schools don't offer more summer programs is that they don't have the money to run the air conditioners in the summer. There are other reasons, though.

However, I suspect that there's more to gorbatzjov's Oregon example than he knows, and that it might be an urban legend (based in partial fact).

_edit: I'm talking about public grade schools here.  Universities are another matter.  I agree largely with nyc's post below mine._


----------



## nycphotography

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> But how many people can pay the thousands of dollars tuition fee?


 
Actually, almost every American citizen can afford a decent college education, with a few important provisions:

First, if you can not afford a private school, almost every state has at least one excellent publicly subsidized university. Of course, the student will have to work hard to make the marks in order to gain admission to those top public universities!

Also, most states, if you live there for some 2 or 3 years, afford you the same subsidized education as if you lived there your entire life. So you can move to the state with the school you want to attend, and work hard waiting tables or some other job, and save save save your money so you can afford tuition. You won't be living in luxury, but if you live cheap, and work hard, you will have a good start.

Basically, in America, there is only one VALID reason that someone _with the aptitude to get one_ truly may have NO access to an excellent education: They just don't want it bad enough. Period. No exceptions. I know more people who worked their way through school in the worst, most unimaginable circumstances, and yet, they somehow did it. They were not genious intellects. They were not skating through easily. But they were driven to obtain the education they wanted or felt they needed.

Poverty in America is, firstly, a state of mind, and secondly, a state of economics. It is a burden. It is an impediment. But it is by no means, a checkmate.


----------



## GenJen54

Every child in the United States is privy to a “free” (tax-funded) education up through High School. In most states, students are required to attend school up and through the age of sixteen (usually second year of high school – 10th year of school overall). 

Schools are funded partially by the Federal Government through specific programs, but the bulk of school monies are collected via individual state tax revenues. I have never heard of a school closing its doors specifically to accommodate for lack of funding, however, I have heard of programs being shut down (sports and arts, in particular) for the same reasons. 

The basic problems in most US schools are: a) misappropriation of funds for administrative (read: upper management) costs; b) over-crowded classrooms and c) ridiculous federal mandates that force the students along a pre-determined curriculum whether they are ready for it or not. It pushes those who “can” to do well, yet continually “leaves behind” those who do not to fend for themselves. Social issues outside of school which affect education are not on-topic here, but are relevant to the greater argument. 

As for whether our schools are “bad,” I would have to say that they are in need of improvement, as others have mentioned, but overall, most individuals coming out of the high school system get out of their education what they put into it. 

Most high schools offer Advanced Placement (college-level) or other advanced programs for students who are bright enough to succeed there. They also offer college placement and/or vocational advisement to students, which helps students determine what path they may choose to take once they have completed high school. 

What I believe most schools are lacking anymore is a quest to form a “well-rounded” individual when it comes to education. Schools focus too much on the basics of “readin’, writin’, ‘rithmatic,” (by need, not because they want to) that they tend to eschew emphasis on other important subjects such as world culture, political science, history and yes, even foreign language (not to mention the arts.) 

Private schools, which are costly, can bridge that gap and provide students in general with a much more rounded education than the average public high school student. That is not to say that privately-educated students are necessarily more successful than their public-school friends. They just might have more opportunities based upon their experiences. 

Ultimately, however, education – no matter how good or “bad” – starts at home and end’s with the student’s willingness to work towards his/her academic goals, no matter what they be.


----------



## Outsider

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Actually, almost every American citizen can afford a decent college education, with a few important provisions:
> 
> First, if you can not afford a private school, almost every state has at least one excellent publicly subsidized university. Of course, the student will have to work hard to make the marks in order to gain admission to those top public universities!


Isn't that the point, though? Shouldn't all public schools in the state be good?


----------



## judkinsc

Outsider said:
			
		

> Isn't that the point, though? Shouldn't all public schools in the state be good?



There are various levels of schools.  It largely depends on how popular they are, and on how many students they have, as well as how much money is donated to them annually by alumni or other organisations.  Typically, the more money it has and the larger it is, the better the school will be.

Also, as public (pre-university) schools are funded based largely income tax and government subsidies, it depends on the area.

The United States is not a socialist country.  Not everything is designed to be the same.  It depends largely upon popularity and funding.


----------



## Outsider

Inequalities between schools are a fact of life, even in socialist countries. 
However, in my opinion, we should strive to give all pupils access to the same education opportunities. If we fail at that, what's the point of having a public school system, anyway? 'Let them eat cake.'


----------



## fenixpollo

judkinsc said:
			
		

> The United States is not a socialist country. Not everything is designed to be the same.


 Notice the cultural similarity between most of the Americans' posts? The student is the one who is expected to rise to the challenge of educating himself/herself. The state is _not expected_ to provide quality education for all students. The fact that state schools are inferior to private schools is taken for granted.

I agree with Outsider that state schools *should* offer high-quality education on a par with that provided by private schools. Most Americans, however, are not willing to pay more property taxes in order to fund that reality -- apparently because they don't agree that it is a reality that is desirable.


----------



## TrentinaNE

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> To my opinion and experience, (public) high school in the USA is really bad. I lived for a while in Oregon with a hostfamily and their daughter couldn't go to school on Friday's because the State didn't have enough money!!!


Sadly, I don't have much trouble believing this happened. When I was in high school in Illinois (1971 - 1974), the school district faced a financial crisis that resulted in a 5-hour school day. For 3 years, I was able to take only 4 "real" classes, plus either gym or music. Being college-bound, I took 4 years of English, math, science, and a foreign language, which meant that in order to fulfill the state's requirement for a year of American history, I had to attend summer school (4 hours a day for I can't remember how many weeks). And that was a joke, too. They tried an experimental teaching approach that organized the material around themes -- it assumed the students already knew the basic timelines of Amer. history, which of course, they didn't. 

Sorry for the rant, but as you can see, I'm still rather bitter about this experience.  

Elisabetta


----------



## fenixpollo

TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> They tried an experimental teaching approach that organized the material around themes -- it assumed the students already knew the basic timelines of Amer. history, which of course, they didn't.


 I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience, Elisabetta. As a former history teacher, I'm especially dismayed.

However, don't conclude that a thematic approach to history is bad based on this one experience, just because it was not executed correctly. It should have integrated a timeline into every theme, along with an overview. What a shame. 

The thematic approach is actually better than the traditional timeline approach because it makes history more relevant and gets away from studying the arcane and the trivial, simply because it comes next in the textbook. 

If American schools were to get away from the "three R's" approach and standardized testing, and if teachers were allowed to get creative with the activities and assessments they used, we would see an improvement in the quality of American schools... IMO.


----------



## Benjy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Inequalities between schools are a fact of life, even in socialist countries.
> However, in my opinion, we should strive to give all pupils access to the same education opportunities. If we fail at that, what's the point of having a public school system, anyway? 'Let them eat cake.'



equal opporunities doesn't imply that all schools should offer the same level of education. not everyone is the same and not everyone will benefit from it. all that tends to happen is that rather lifting kids up it just drags the best right back down.


----------



## TrentinaNE

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> However, don't conclude that a thematic approach to history is bad based on this one experience, just because it was not executed correctly. It should have integrated a timeline into every theme, along with an overview. What a shame.


Thanks, fenixpollo. 33 years after the fact, my memory of the course is more than a little dim. But I believe it was indeed poorly executed, as we shuffled around between teachers for whom it was a first-time experiment as well. The compressed schedule didn't help either, I'm sure.

The irony is that I'm now fascinated by history, and would love the luxury of being able to retake the course (as well as to study European history) with adept teachers and equally interested students.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Outsider

I thought I might be misunderstood... 



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> equal opporunities doesn't imply that all schools should offer the same level of education. not everyone is the same and not everyone will benefit from it. all that tends to happen is that rather lifting kids up it just drags the best right back down.


Students should start off on equal footing, regardless of how well they happened to 'choose' their parents, financial status, neighbourhood, race, etc. *
But if, having started under the same conditions, some students end up progressing more than others, I am not opposed to ranking and sorting them according to their achievements in school, at some later time.

Or, in other words, I believe we should strive to make public schools as _equally accessible_ to every student as possible, but of course equal access does not imply equal performance.

* Students with disabilities may be a special case.


----------



## judkinsc

Outsider said:
			
		

> I thought I might be misunderstood...
> 
> Students should start off on equal footing, regardless of how well they happened to 'choose' their parents, financial status, neighbourhood, race, etc. *
> But if, having started under the same conditions, some students end up progressing more than others, I am not opposed to ranking and sorting them according to their achievements in school, at some later time.
> 
> Or, in other words, I believe we should strive to make public schools as _equally accessible_ to every student as possible, but of course equal access does not imply equal performance.
> 
> * Students with disabilities may be a special case.



For all students to come from the same demographic is effectively impossible.  It would be nice, though.


----------



## Outsider

I think you are missing the point. We can't change the demographic from which students come, but we can choose to allow students from all demographics into every public school, or to let some demographics keep getting better public schools than others.


----------



## judkinsc

They are allowed into any public school..

This does not include universities or post-secondary education.  

It's called "school of choice" in the US.

If they flunk out of the school, or have discipline problems, they are sometimes sent to a different school for troubled youth.

As to certain areas getting better schools...if you're defining "better" as more experienced teachers, or smaller class sizes, or more funding...the inner city and problem schools often pay the teachers better than a school in a suburb.  The government also offers them more subsidies.

"to keep getting better public schools" doesn't make sense as an argument to me, concerning the United States.  It doesn't exist like that.

The areas with better schools...are usually wealthy, suburban areas.  Rural schools often have less funding, while inner city schools often are overcrowded and have discipline problems.

In the US...wealthy people and wealthy area = wealthy school, due to the amount of taxes payed to the school by the people in the area.  This is a matter voted on in the local elections.

People in one certain area do not pay for the schools in another certain area.  Not directly.  It's based on property taxes for the area.  Governmental support is a different matter, of which I know very few specifics.

It can be argued that "it's not fair" that some schools are better than others.  Perhaps so.  As I said, the US is not a socialist country.


----------



## fenixpollo

judkinsc said:
			
		

> It's called "school of choice" in the US.
> *This only exists in certain areas. Most kids are stuck at the school that's closest to them, for better or worse.*
> 
> As to certain areas getting better schools...if you're defining "better" as more experienced teachers, or smaller class sizes, or more funding...the inner city and problem schools often pay the teachers better than a school in a suburb. The government also offers them more subsidies.
> *That's not accurate in my experience. Schools in areas with depressed economies and low property values generally receive less money than, or the same amount of money as, schools in wealthy districts. Because schools in areas with lower socio-economic status have greater need than suburban schools, the same dollars have to stretch further. In addition, teacher retention, aging infrastructure and parental uninvolvement are all issues in impoverished areas. Some areas do have better schools than others.*
> 
> The areas with better schools...are usually wealthy, suburban areas. Rural schools often have less funding, while inner city schools often are overcrowded and have discipline problems.
> 
> In the US...wealthy people and wealthy area = wealthy school, due to the amount of taxes payed to the school by the people in the area. This is a matter voted on in the local elections.
> 
> It can be argued that "it's not fair" that some schools are better than others. Perhaps so. As I said, the US is not a socialist country.


So then you contradict yourself when you go on to say that some schools are better.

Are you saying that any talk of equal schools for all children is socialism? Do you equate socialism with (gasp!) communism?


----------



## GenJen54

Outsider said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point. We can't change the demographic from which students come, but we can choose to allow students from all demographics into every public school...


 
This _is_ happening through the "magnet" school programs (part of public shools) in the US.  "Magnet" schools - middle and/or high-school which usually "specialize" in a particular subject area (arts, math, science, etc.) are usually built in lower-income areas as a means of attracting students from all walks of life to these schools.  

Students need not be interested or have a particular talent in the school's subject area to attend.  The idea is to offer a better "mix" of students within the school which is beneficial to everyone. 

The education level is also better to a degree.  One magnet school in my area rivals even the local private schools and is the only public high school in the state to offer an "International Baccelaurate" as part of their program.


----------



## Outsider

Let me just say one more thing. Even though in my country we currently do have a socialist party in government, we have exactly the same kind of school inequalities here that Chad and other posters have talked about. I don't think it has much to do with being a little more left of center, or a little more right of center. These problems are universal, as far as I can see (perhaps in Scandinavia they don't exist...)

Please note also that I have nothing against private schools of excellence, for those who can afford them (and this may even include students with few economic resources, who get into such schools through scholarships). But public schools, being funded by the public, should strive to treat students democratically, IMHO.


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> The state is _not expected_ to provide quality education for all students. The fact that state schools are inferior to private schools is taken for granted.


  That's not quite correct.  Some state universities are considered better than many private ones: Michigan (Ann Arbor), U.C. Berkeley, U. Va, and some campuses of the N.Y. State U. system, for example.  There are a multitude of mediocre private colleges and universities as well.  

The state is expected to provide _an opportunity for _university level education, and some states have tiered systems with differing levels of quality for students with distinct achievement levels in high school.  

Still, it's quite possible for a Michigan State U. student to get an education as good as or better than that received by a U. of Michigan student, despite the greater admissions selectivity of the the latter.  Individual effort does come into play.

I've also had personal experiences as both teacher and student at some of the supposed 'elite' institutions, and have seen students fail to get much of an education, through lack of effort.  

No political system or ideology can stimulate all students to work.  That said, the provision of public education, at both the high school and university levels, is in essence socialistic.  Don't tell Dubya.  He would send troops to shut down all those state university campuses in states that voted for 'the enemy'.


----------



## judkinsc

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So then you contradict yourself when you go on to say that some schools are better.
> 
> Are you saying that any talk of equal schools for all children is socialism?  Do you equate socialism with (gasp!) communism?



I was replying to Outsider's comments and explaining why equal schools do not currently exist.

How to effectively have equal schools for all children is enormously complex.  The pat answer is to provide more funding and teacher training for them all.  This raises taxes and is usually on the governmental agenda somewhere.  There is still a difference in schools.  For all schools to be balanced would require removing the inclusion of property taxes and donations to local schools and replacing it with a vast governmentally control "school fund", which would then dole out a specific amount of funding per student, regardless of area.

There is, actually, a specific amount of funding given to a school per student, in Michigan it is something between one and two thousand dollars a year.  This is government funding on the state level though, and does not include the property taxes, nor donations by private citizens, which are higher in wealthy areas.  For instance, the surburbian high school I attended wanted a new auditorium.  How did it fund it?  Private donations from locals.  Would this work in an inner city where excess funds might be slim?

Beyond that, my grasp of economics in relation to schools falls completely apart.

As I said, in reality, better schools are dependent upon area.  Would I like everyone to have the same schools, all very good and perfect?  Certainly.  But it does not realistically exist as such.  

Socialism is basically governmental control.  The more of it, the more socialist a country becomes and the higher the expectation for the government to take care of everything without private support.  In extremes, this becomes communism.  In effect, it destroys the sense of "making it by yourself," a philosophy which thoroughly motivates the private citizen in the US.


----------



## Outsider

judkinsc said:
			
		

> Socialism is basically governmental control.


Governmental control is another thing you can't realistically get rid of, either...


----------



## judkinsc

Outsider said:
			
		

> Governmental control is another thing you can't realistically get rid of, either...



True.  There is always the debate over how much is necessary.


----------



## MarcB

At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th. (ABC News).
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338.
The US system has rated lower than that of some industrialized countries and higher than developing ones. Japanese schools tend to be uniform as are some European schools. In The US you can find some of the best schools in the world, often private or public in rich or upper middle class neighborhoods. And some of the worst often public and in poor and lower middle class neighborhoods. Please see the 2020 website. Some schools in the US have metal detectors to check students for weapons (not the case in Columbine) and security and even police patrols. Draw your own conclusions


----------



## fenixpollo

judkinsc said:
			
		

> I was replying to Outsider's comments and explaining why equal schools do not currently exist.
> 
> Would I like everyone to have the same schools, all very good and perfect? Certainly. But it does not realistically exist as such.


 You sounded like you were not only accepting the way things are, but defending them as better because they are non-socialistic. Plus, you contradicted yourself by saying that schools are equal (because of state funding) but that some schools are better than others. 


> Socialism is basically governmental control. The more of it, the more socialist a country becomes and the higher the expectation for the government to take care of everything without private support. In extremes, this becomes communism. In effect, it destroys the sense of "making it by yourself," a philosophy which thoroughly motivates the private citizen in the US.


 Socialism is not about control, and is not about the government "taking care of everything." Socialism is the idea that _certain_ services are the responsibility of the government. 

Capitalism has no interest in providing services unless they make a profit; no matter how much people need those services. Capitalism is competitive, not benevolent or cooperative. Government can be. Socialism says that government should provide services that private enterprise cannot, such as health care, roads, public transportation, parks, sewers, garbage collection, and education. 

In defending public education against socialism, you overlook one crucial fact: *public education is socialism*. The very concept that the government should operate schools and require all children to attend a (any) school is a socialistic idea. A capitalistic approach would be to not have any state schools and let the profit motive and the value of "making it by yourself" determine who should get an education, the quality and quantity of that education.  If you think schools are unequal now....


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Socialism says that government should provide services that private enterprise cannot, such as health care, roads, public transportation, parks, sewers, garbage collection, and education.


By the way, those services don't just benefit individual citizens. They also benefit private corporations. Roads are an obvious example (and road maintenance!), but education is another one. When public schools don't educate students well, corporations need to make up for it by training their employees, at the company's expense.

We're living in a competitive world, where employers always want the best man for the job. But if you allow a significant portion of the population to be brushed aside from good education, you are going to lose lots of potential best men for the job, and end up with second bests.


----------



## gorbatzjov

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> That's very strange....I've never heard of that happening. The state didn't have enough money to pay the teachers for 5 days a week, so they went 4?



Yes, that's what happened for some time (several weeks) in either september 2001 or september 2003 (I believe it was 2003). I'm talking about Oregon City, if any one is familiar with that community (the high school was something like "South Oregon City High School")



			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I don't know if you know this, but almost all public universities cost thousands of dollars to attend...the one i'm currently attending will probably end up costing more than $20,000 overall by the time i'm done.



See, to me this is very weird. I pay € 500 per YEAR in Belgium. Isn't education THE most important thing in a "good, rich, intellectual" society as well as in a "economically rich" country? If you keep your people stupid, or make it unable for them to still all they want, how are you going to have the geniuses a country sometimes need? 

Getting a "loan" to study sounds very contradictory to me as I probably am not familiar with the huge expenses that are involved in studying. So after you graduate, the first thing you do, is pay of some several thousands of dollars? And if you want to buy a house or a car, get deeper into debts? Doesn't seem to promote studying...


----------



## gorbatzjov

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Notice the cultural similarity between most of the Americans' posts? The student is the one who is expected to rise to the challenge of educating himself/herself. The state is _not expected_ to provide quality education for all students. The fact that state schools are inferior to private schools is taken for granted.



You have a good point there fenixpollo. 
Our government has said this about education: "Everyone, whether they are big or small, rich or poor, Belgian or not-Belgian, intelligent or less intelligent, should have the right and the access to a free (up to 18 years) and a payable education after high school; by which Parliament agreed that "payable" means that the minimum wage earners should be able to send their children to college. The State must garantee the quality of education by all means."

Therefore our universities are very similar. Whether you graduate from the Uni of Brussels or the Uni of Antwerp, it doesn't matter... They are all seen as equal. Private instituations don't exist because this would raise tuition and make an "economic" battle between Universities.


----------



## Fernando

gorbatzjov, while I am proner to the "European system" your comparison is unfair.

Basedow's education and yours cost most the same. The difference is he pays a big percentage of his education while you are paying a small part. The other part is been payed by taxpayer (students or not). 

In Europe we have a huge amount of bad students, real lazies who should look for their living rather than crawling for years in classrooms.

PS: Why to make universities for stupids? Stupids should never go to universities.


----------



## gorbatzjov

Fernando said:
			
		

> gorbatzjov, while I am proner to the "European system" your comparison is unfair.
> 
> Basedow's education and yours cost most the same. The difference is he pays a big percentage of his education while you are paying a small part. The other part is been payed by taxpayer (students or not).
> 
> In Europe we have a huge amount of bad students, real lazies who should look for their living rather than crawling for years in classrooms.
> 
> PS: Why to make universities for stupids? Stupids should never go to universities.



Yes of cours, I agree there are a lot of lazy guys who'd better start working. I was just trying to explain that it is my opinion that because costs may be TOO high for STUDENTS, they may opt not to continue studying. What I have learned at this thread is that appareantly, many Americans (USA'ers) don't bother to start paying off loans after graduating, something I cannot even imagine!


----------



## judkinsc

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> What I have learned at this thread is that appareantly, many Americans (USA'ers) don't bother to start paying off loans after graduating, something I cannot even imagine!



Of course we pay them off.  It is not required to pay the entire amount immediately.  They are like any loan, you pay a bit every month or more if you can and want to.


----------



## fenixpollo

gorbatzjov said:
			
		

> Isn't education THE most important thing in a "good, rich, intellectual" society as well as in a "economically rich" country?


 No, in the U.S., education is not the most important thing.  It is important, but the society (as a whole) does not value it as thing #1.  

And Fernando is right -- the education in our two countries probably costs the same.  Belgians pay less tuition because you pay more taxes.  In the U.S., having to pay low taxes is more important to most Americans than having excellent schools for all students.


----------



## gorbatzjov

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> No, in the U.S., education is not the most important thing. It is important, but the society (as a whole) does not value it as thing #1.
> 
> And Fernando is right -- the education in our two countries probably costs the same. Belgians pay less tuition because you pay more taxes. In the U.S., having to pay low taxes is more important to most Americans than having excellent schools for all students.



Which brings the question to who's responsible to pay for studies. Should the student pay for its own education or should the society?


----------



## Mjolnir

I have a question for people from the USA.

I watched The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and he did his usual J-Walking, where he asks random people questions. This time, he asked high school students about geography.

The questions were really easy, and the responses of the students... well, see for yourselves:

Q: "Where's Iraq?"
A1: "In Afghanistan"
A2: "In Southern Europe"

Q: "How do you call people from Denmark?"
A: "Jewish people"

Q: "If a person's from Amsterdam, what's his nationality?"
A: "Amsterdamian"

My question is this - did the show exaggerate (extremely), or is this the normal level of high school students in the US?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

It's pretty well known that Americans aren't the smartest people in the world 

Seriously, these types of shows always try and pick out the stupidest people they can find and use them to represent the majority.

Although, there are some shocking examples such as 63 per cent of Americans aged 18 to 24 being unable to locate Iraq on a map.


----------



## Mjolnir

Yeah, I figured that they probably pick the dumbest people, but the answers just stunned me. The example you gave about locating Iraq is also shocking. Leno said that 11% of high school students in the USA can't locate the USA on a map, their own country!


----------



## CrepiIlLupo

Did this show probably take an extremely stupid and non-representative sample for entertainment value?  It seems pretty implausable to believe that they wouldn't.  

If the statistics about being able to locate Iraq on a map are true, I find that disgusting.  

I know a lot of Americans have already commented on this thread, but here are my two cents.

First of all, I can't compare my educational background or system to anybody else's because I don't know (or have only a faint idea) of how the educational systems of other countries work.  However, there is a stereotype here of the Indian and Asian students who come to the U.S., which is that they are much harder-working than American students.  Even though _I really _like to avoid stereotypes of any sort, I would have to say that in my experience this has seemed true.  

As far as primary education is concerned, I definitely believe that public schooling is below par for the most part.  Our current administration seems to want to handle this by taking kids out of failing public schools.  The problem with this is, of course, that the public schools are failing due to lack of governmental support.  

_Bad. _I'm still struggling to understand what exactly was meant by this word.  I personally don't feel that i've had a bad education.  Far from it.  I had many teachers who were extremely intelligent and cared about what they taught.  

The sad reality is that there is such a HUGE gap between the rich and poor in this country, and the poor in the inner-cities and extremely rural areas are certainly not always able to gain access out of the system in which they are brought up.  All people should be able to start out on equal footing?  Absolutely.  Is this an attainable reality, in any culture?  I think not.

Americans definitely don't seem to hold education in as high a regard as other cultures do ON THE WHOLE.  By contrast, I feel that many of my countrymen are more trade oriented and gear themselves toward an "education" in that respect.  But, as with every other place on earth (yes, even Scotland!) there are extremely intelligent and extremely stupid people.  I have met (and I know that this may seem unbelievable to some of you) American people who were extremely well-educated and knowledgeable and worldly, rivaling the "educational upbringing" of any world citizen.  

I am certain there are many American schools which would be considered lowly by world standards, but there are plenty of American institutions that are continually lauded as among the best on the planet (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, etc.), though I don't know the criteria which are used to make them so.

In summation of my novella here, I think black and white statements such as this are inaccurate.  How do you quantify such a thing?  The next time you see an American, match wits with him and see what you get.  I'm betting he could either be dumber or smarter than you.  I'll do the same experiment with someone from another culture, and I'm sure i'll get the same results.  Get that grain of salt ready.


----------



## dudasd

In spite of all great minds that evidently exist in America, as well as lot of educated people, it's obvious that there are some serious gaps in American schooling system. One of the many examples I saw: some 20 years ago, a group of reporters from Belgrade made a reportage about America. There was also a cute presentation of American students receiving their university degrees. As those young people had just graduated in geography (I can't remember which of the US universities it was), one of our reporters made a small "inquiry" and asked those teachers-to-be several questions about Yugoslavia (which had 22 million of people then, and wasn't just a "spot" somewhere in Europe). I still remember some of the answers:

"In Africa, right?"

"I don't know where it is, but at least I know for sure it consists of three different nations." (Btw, our country had 6 nations those days.)

"Of course I know, in the south of Europe. Yugoslavian people speak three native languages: French, Italian, and... German?" (Our official native languages were Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian, which are Slavic languages, as the very name of the country implied.)

At the same time, in grammar schools of our provincial towns, we were already learning about industry and economy of all the possible countries (things like number of sheep in Australia or information about export/import of wheat in USA). I remember I thought: "These Americans are really a lucky nation, they don't have to learn as much as we do."


----------



## shoobydoowap

CrepiIlLupo took the words right out of my mouth.

The teaching of Geography in American schools is definitely a weak point. (Of course, I think 99.99% of American students could locate the United States on a map. Come on.) But I don't think that means that we can classify a whole educational system as "bad."

And what's worse is that most judgments made on educational systems are made from standardized testing... and a discussion on how standardized testing is garbage would take a whole new thread.


----------



## Athaulf

dudasd said:


> In spite of all great minds that evidently exist in America, as well as lot of educated people, it's obvious that there are some serious gaps in American schooling system. One of the many examples I saw: some 20 years ago, a group of reporters from Belgrade made a reportage about America. There was also a cute presentation of American students receiving their university degrees. As those young people had just graduated in geography (I can't remember which of the US universities it was), one of our reporters made a small "inquiry" and asked those teachers-to-be several questions about Yugoslavia (which had 22 million of people then, and wasn't just a "spot" somewhere in Europe). I still remember some of the answers:
> 
> "In Africa, right?"
> 
> "I don't know where it is, but at least I know for sure it consists of three different nations." (Btw, our country had 6 nations those days.)
> 
> "Of course I know, in the south of Europe. Yugoslavian people speak three native languages: French, Italian, and... German?" (Our official native languages were Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian, which are Slavic languages, as the very name of the country implied.)
> 
> At the same time, in grammar schools of our provincial towns, we were already learning about industry and economy of all the possible countries (things like number of sheep in Australia or information about export/import of wheat in USA). I remember I thought: "These Americans are really a lucky nation, they don't have to learn as much as we do."



The problem is that with anecdotes like this, one can prove everything and nothing at the same time. I could easily produce a bunch of equally funny true stories where educated people from ex-Yugoslavia and other European countries showed laughable ignorance as soon as the topic touched something outside their field of expertise, and often even within it (see this old post of mine for one such example). As for my teachers of subjects such as history and geography, they didn't make such outright embarrassing displays of ignorance as in your anecdote, but many of them did confidently teach us all sorts of widely believed, but entirely false factoids, popular myths, and shallow prejudices, which sometimes got to the point where it would have been really better to leave us altogether ignorant. As for all the nonsense about export-import figures and the like that we were forced to endure, I have yet to meet anyone who ever remembered any of it beyond the exam day (if even that long).

Furthermore, what looks as a horrible gap in one's knowledge from one point of view, can also look pretty insignificant from a different perspective. Many Europeans -- I'm talking in generalities now -- like to laugh at Americans' ignorance about this or that fact of European geography, while at the same time their own knowledge of American geography is pretty much limited to being able to find the U.S. on the world map and to roughly locate New York and L.A. on the U.S. map. Similarly, many of them laugh at Americans' ignorance of European history and politics, whereas at the same time, they have a cartoonishly ignorant picture of American history and politics, except perhaps for those parts that happen to touch closely on the affairs of their home countries. Thus, one should always take into account the relativity of the cultural perspective.

And finally, too many people exaggerate the importance of erudition in judging the quality of an educational system. Erudition is a nice thing, and I certainly appreciate it, but there are more important things to be mastered first. In Croatia, I find it shocking how people can be laughing at the supposedly inferior American education, considering how many functionally semi-literate people are coming out of Croatian schools and even universities. Faced with two random A-students from Croatia and the U.S., I would definitely have much more confidence in the latter's ability to produce a sensible, readable, and well-researched ten-page essay on a given topic.


----------



## dudasd

Athaulf said:


> As for my teachers of subjects such as history and geography, they didn't make such outright embarrassing displays of ignorance as in your anecdote, but many of them did confidently teach us all sorts of widely believed, but entirely false factoids, popular myths, and shallow prejudices, which sometimes got to the point where it would have been really better to leave us altogether ignorant.


 
This was not an anecdote, nor something our teachers told us, I saw that reportage on TV myself. (I don't remember that any of our teachers used false factoids or popurar myths to stimulate us, probably some did it in other schools.) Of course I forgot how many sheep there were in Australia in 1986, and this is not laughing at American "ignorance", there are so many things where Americans are superior. But gaps do exist in American system of education, that's something my American friends often complain about, and I also see that in last 10 years or so our system has been pretty "Americanized" as well, compared to older generations like mine (so I wouldn't bet that our young people posess more erudition at the moment).


----------



## michimz

This conversation has turned in to 'who is smarter.'  The topic is quality of schools in the US.  On this topic, I would like to share some of my experiences.  I am a social worker and spend my days focusing on the problems the low-income people face.  

One client's High School 'education' consisted of him showing up to school for a couple of hours and then going to work for McDonald's as part of his 'work program.'  He claims that he did that throughout high school.  So after working in McDonald's for years, he can now put on his job applications that he as a High School Diploma.  

Another client of mine cannot spell to save his life.  One of my favorite misspells is _coda_ instead of _soda._  He also claims a high school diploma.  He was in 'Special Education' when he was in school.  

These two cases are from Texas.  My last story to share is from the state of Washington.  My sister is in a program for children who learn more quickly than most kids.  Where do these kids attend school? In the school in the bad part of town, of course.  When you have a school with low test scores, why would you want to take the time, money and effort to give them the support they need when you could just put the kids with the highest scores at the same school to average out the numbers?!

My opinion is that US schools have MANY MANY problems that one can not see unless he/she is in the middle of it.  

Michimz


----------



## Kajjo

I have no personal experience with American schools, but with several American students who came to Germany and England. My impression was as follows: 

(1) History and geography very much focuses on _American_ history and geography. The knowledge about foreign countries and continents as well as about European history was shallow at best.

(2) Learning foreign languages on a high level appears to be relatively rare. Most Americans I met in England did not claim to know any other language than English to a degree that would enable them to correspond easily. Those students I met in Germany were very proud of having mastered German (I agree, by the way, that German is a quite difficult language) and claimed that only few Americans learn foreign languages up to fluency.

(3) Only very few Americans had a very wide common knowledge, although I met several scientists with incredible common knowledge. 

If those three issues were correct, I would deduce that the American school system is not very good. However, I do not know how much of this is prejudice or limited experience on my side and how much is actually true.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

Kajjo said:


> If those three issues were correct, I would deduce that the American school system is not very good.


 Or maybe the American school system is very good at teaching students about American history and geography, teaching basic foreign languages, and teaching specialized knowledge.


----------



## gbkv

I have worked at public schools from K-12 (I'm currently a high school Spanish teacher) in three different states.  I strongly feel that many of the problems which are attributed to "bad" schools are in fact due to societal factors (which are then exacerbated by defects in schools and the educational system--right on up to Mr. No Child Left Behind).

There seems to have a been a huge, but silent societal shift regarding the supposed duties of the parent vs. teacher and the perception of the teacher.  (Public) schools are now expected to teach values and ethics to children!  I'm all for widely accepted values being upheld in schools and modeled by the staff, etc.--but isn't it the parent's duty (and desire???) to teach his or her child about right and wrong?  And teachers' already difficult jobs are made next to impossible because students do not come to class with basic interpersonal and self-management skills that supposedly should have been learned at home.

And have you watched TV, the movies, or read a magazine lately?  You see two types of teachers in the former:  traditionally trained teachers who are terrible, amoral, etc. (think Boston Public) or people with no training in education who blow in and steal the show (Dangerous Minds, etc.).  And in the magazines, there's article upon article about how to make sure your child's teacher is really doing his/her job, how to sue your child's teacher...I'm not saying there're no bad teachers, but this sounds like guilty until proven innocent!

When you add in things like routine class sizes above 30, sadly outdated resources, and over-mandated and under-supported teachers, even the few children who come to school ready to learn get buried under the chaos.

Our schools make me sad and scared, and I think most of us who succeeded owe our success more to our families than our schools.  What I've always been very curious to find out is how do we really compare to other countries?  (In other words, are we "bad" compared to what?)


----------



## Kajjo

fenixpollo said:


> Or maybe the American school system is very good at teaching students about American history and geography,...


Yes, this perspective is certainly right. The emphasis on one issue makes the education regarding this issue excellent. However, the lack of teaching other history and geography should not be denied.



> ...teaching basic foreign languages, and teaching specialized knowledge.


Indeed. The same.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

gbkv said:


> There seems to have a been a huge, but silent societal shift regarding the supposed duties of the parent vs. teacher and the perception of the teacher.  (Public) schools are now expected to teach values and ethics to children!  I'm all for widely accepted values being upheld in schools and modeled by the staff, etc.--but isn't it the parent's duty (and desire???) to teach his or her child about right and wrong?


Interestingly, the same discussion is going on in Germany. More and more people demand moral values and virtues to be taught be teachers rather than parants. I believe this is a misdevelopment. Parents have the duty to teach and educate their own children in values.

Kajjo


----------



## Ynez

gbkv said:


> What I've always been very curious to find out is how do we really compare to other countries? (In other words, are we "bad" compared to what?)


 
It's the same here. For many years now all the pressure of education was on teachers, not parents. I hope this may start to change soon.


----------



## newbold

This is a story that would've made national headlines and I've never heard of it. Google hasn't heard of it either. But the premise of this argument is way off in the first place. It's also "begging the question". In the US "states" don't pay for primary education. Sure, the state and the federal government might kick in a part of the annual budget (and that's mostly confined to the poorest districts) but the bulk of money for public schools everywhere is from taxes collected at the municipal or county level. 

When I hear about schools shutting down it's because the teachers are on strike, not b/c the school doesn't have any money. 

Personally, i'm a little tired of european chauvinism and propaganda. It's not that i think this country doesn't have problems. I know it does. It's that i think that most europeans have no clue about american education, culture or politics. They just think they do b/c they watch american tv shows. 

It's like some english acquaintances of mine, who, while i was in London, proceeded to insult my intelligence while talking about a broad range of issues but had no background on anything they were talking about. They also had no idea where Philadelphia was.  As a point of comparison it would be like me not knowing where Berlin is.  

Or the french kids i used to tutor who, after arriving in the US, couldn't believe there were so many americans who, not only didn't own giant cars, but didn't own cars at all. They expected to find a lot of rich people with giant houses and pools and expected that we would go to an amusement park every day, eat McDonald's, and watch hours of television. They were incredibly disappointed to find themselves among people who ate at good restaurants if they ate out at all, didn't have cable, and lived in houses smaller than those they left in France. In essence, they were the equivalent of american tourists who visit france to see the eiffel tower, eat a crepe, buy a beret, shop at hard rock cafe, then go home. 

I'm intelligent enough to make the distinction between french kids from small towns in rural areas who don't know much about the world and the french kids from bigger cities like Lyon and Paris who were quite comfortable here and get around on their own quite well. I would never say "One of my french students got lost walking 3 blocks to the bakery, man, those french kids are dumb." 

A stereotype is a stereotype.


----------



## Kajjo

newbold said:


> Personally, i'm a little tired of european chauvinism and propaganda. It's not that i think this country doesn't have problems. I know it does. It's that i think that most europeans have no clue about american education, culture or politics. They just think they do b/c they watch american tv shows.


Well, I can understand how you feel, and you are surely right, that many misconceptions of Europeans about American culture might originate from American TV shows. However, please also understand that many of the WRF foreros certainly have met several Americans or lived, or at least stayed, in America and were able to build up a more realistic picture. 



> They also had no idea where Philadelphia was.  As a point of comparison it would be like me not knowing where Berlin is.


I do not think so. Philadelphia might be heartfelt for you, but it is only the sixth most populous city in the US, while Berlin is Germany's capital, its most populous city, the second most populous city of Europe, and it has been historically important on a world-wide scale in the last century. There IS a huge difference here. A  better comparison to Berlin would have been Los Angeles or New York.



> In essence, they were the equivalent of american tourists who visit france to see the eiffel tower, eat a crepe, buy a beret, shop at hard rock cafe, then go home.


Yes, these are typical examples of TV misconceptions and prejudices. You are right that Europeans might have a wrong picture about fast food, huge cras or amusements parks in the US. However, please note that American movies are largely made by Americans. It is not a European fault to paint such a simplified picture -- although everyone educated should be able to think further, I agree.

* Let's return to the title question:* _Is American education bad?_

Fact is that such a question cannot be answered. The question in itself is misleading and simplified. I think everyone will agree that (1) there are many different aspects of education, e.g. _subjects_ (science, language, music, history...) or _values _(discipline, puntuality, modesty), each of which a certain system of education might be _strong or weak _in, and each of which a people might _desire or not_. Thus, every single education system will not simply be good or bad, but it will be good or bad as far as a _certain aspect _is concerned and might be the opposite for another. Also everyone will hopefully agree that (2) _good or bad _are absolute values which generally cannot easily be assigned. Good or bad is usually measured _relative_ to something else, it can be _better or worse_, but it is not necessarily simply _good or bad_.

Putting both points together this leads me to the conclusion, that we should replace the title question by better questions, i.e. more specific and more "relative" questions.

For example, languages are in the focus of this forums, so we could ask:

_Which system, American or German, achieves a higher general fluency in a foreign language?_

But we should also ask:

_In which country is it necessary to achieve a high fluency in a foreign language?_

Germans speak English. And they need to be able to speak English. Whereever I go, I can communicate in English. I do not need any other foreign languages. I can understand the claim of many Americans that they see no _necessity _in learning a foreign language, even if they see several _advantages _of speaking a foreign language.

The same track of thought applies to learning history. Of course, Chinese will learn very much about Chinese history. Germans do not learn much about Chinese history. Americans will learn a lot more about American history than Germans. And so on. To phrase a reasonable question about the quality of history education, we would need to define an _aim_, e.g. "having success on a gobal market and in international relations" or "understanding international politics and interests". Given such a specific aim, we can compare American and German "history and politics education" if we knew both system well enough. 

Back to the question and my very personal opinion as I mentioned it already in post 50. There I took the untold perspective of "global and international".  I still personally believe that learning at least one foreign language is an important part of school education. Thus, I would conclude that US education does not achieve the same standard as German education _in this certain aspect_ does. Maybe this achievement is no desirable goal for Americans anyway, so _their system_ might be better _for them _while our system is better for us. The same thought applies for "history and politics".

Kajjo


----------



## newbold

Kajjo said:


> Well, I can understand how you feel, and you are surely right, that many misconceptions of Europeans about American culture might originate from American TV shows. However, please also understand that many of the WRF foreros certainly have met several Americans or lived, or at least stayed, in America and were able to build up a more realistic picture.
> 
> I do not think so. Philadelphia might be heartfelt for you, but it is only the sixth most populous city in the US, while Berlin is Germany's capital, its most populous city, the second most populous city of Europe, and it has been historically important on a world-wide scale in the last century. There IS a huge difference here. A  better comparison to Berlin would have been Los Angeles or New York.



Our first problem is that Berlin is not the second most populous city in Europe. It is smaller than London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, and Manchester - and that's just if we're talking about European countries within the EU.  And yes, it's also smaller than Philadelphia. Having been to all of those cities and having also been to LA and NYC I can tell you, unequivocally, that the only accurate comparisons would be between London and Paris, New York and LA. (In fact, London and Paris are both about the size of Chicago)

Philadelphia is the second largest city on the east coast and the biggest city in Pennsylvania. If i'm expected to know that the capital of Croatia is Zagreb (a metro of 1 million) and be able to find it on a map I would expect that europeans would be able to identify the 20 largest american cities and, at a minimum, be able to find an american city larger than Berlin or Milan.

Our second problem is that europeans approach the US as a monolith. As if knowing the national capital and the two largest cities is enough. It's like if i said, "oh, yeah, i know european geography. Brussels is the capital and London and Paris are the biggest cities." Not only that but from what i've found traveling on both continents, cultural differences within the US are, at the very least, just as varied as those between France and Germany. If you're comparing Boston to Miami or Seattle to El Paso the differences will be greater.  



> Yes, these are typical examples of TV misconceptions and prejudices. You are right that Europeans might have a wrong picture about fast food, huge cras or amusements parks in the US. However, please note that American movies are largely made by Americans. It is not a European fault to paint such a simplified picture -- although everyone educated should be able to think further, I agree.



And that's a big difference between americans and europeans. We seem to understand much better the definition of "fiction".  We get a lot of european films here. Most of them are about french infidelity, spanish dysfunction, or german murderers. If I harbored stereotypes from european cinema I would be too scared to go to europe. 



> * Let's return to the title question:* _Is American education bad?_
> 
> Putting both points together this leads me to the conclusion, that we should replace the title question by better questions, i.e. more specific and more "relative" questions.
> 
> For example, languages are in the focus of this forums, so we could ask:
> 
> _Which system, American or German, achieves a higher general fluency in a foreign language?_
> 
> But we should also ask:
> 
> _In which country is it necessary to achieve a high fluency in a foreign language?_
> 
> Germans speak English. And they need to be able to speak English. Whereever I go, I can communicate in English. I do not need any other foreign languages. I can understand the claim of many Americans that they see no _necessity _in learning a foreign language, even if they see several _advantages _of speaking a foreign language.



The EU has 23 official languages. North America has 3 major languages. I speak all 3 of them (i will admit that my spanish is lacking pero entiendo todos). It's true that language training isn't an emphasis in the US or Canada but the north american english market is 300 million people. Add another 100 million people world-wide. We have twice as many native spanish speakers in the US as there are Portuguese speakers in Portugal. Learning German or Italian just isn't important or a practical skill. If people learn it it's because they want to. If you're learning a language that isn't French, Spanish, or Mandarin then you're just doing it for fun or to better yourself personally. 



> The same track of thought applies to learning history. Of course, Chinese will learn very much about Chinese history. Germans do not learn much about Chinese history. Americans will learn a lot more about American history than Germans. And so on. To phrase a reasonable question about the quality of history education, we would need to define an _aim_, e.g. "having success on a gobal market and in international relations" or "understanding international politics and interests". Given such a specific aim, we can compare American and German "history and politics education" if we knew both system well enough.



Maybe the biggest difference is what the school systems are preparing their kids for. In wealthier areas students are prepared for university studies. In poorer areas students are prepared for work in warehouses, manufacturing, or service industries. From what i've seen similar tracks of study exist in europe although they probably have much less to do with geography and more to do with economic class. 

That said, there are a lot of countries in the world. US high school education covers in some detail the history of of the more powerful nations in history (Russia, China, England, France, Germany, Turkey, etc) and many other countries in less detail. Nearly every university requires students to study a more detailed history (europe, asia, africa, latin america) for at least a year. That's in addition to study of world literature (in high school and university). 



> Back to the question and my very personal opinion as I mentioned it already in post . There I took the untold perspective of "global and international".  I still personally believe that learning at least one foreign language is an important part of school education. Thus, I would conclude that US education does not achieve the same standard as German education _in this certain aspect_ does. Maybe this achievement is no desirable goal for Americans anyway, so _their system_ might be better _for them _while our system is better for us. The same thought applies for "history and politics".
> Kajjo



Most high schools already require a year and a half of foreign language and, at this point, Spanish is mandatory in most places. In many districts Spanish education now starts at age 8. I'm a little older so i studied french through high school and into university. Now i'm getting a second degree in Spanish. Universities require a year of language study (most offer Spanish, French, Portugues, German, and Italian) and another year of study on some related cultural topic - French cinema for example. Granted, in schools that don't start children in the 3rd or 4th grade there isn't enough time to achieve fluency but it's also not the goal in those cases. It's to prepare the student for the pursuit of fluency at the university level.


----------



## michimz

newbold said:


> and, at this point, Spanish is mandatory in most places.


 
 That's news to me! What exactly does 'most places' mean?


----------



## sdgraham

My wife, a retired school administrator, advises me that Spanish is NOT required in the district where she taught, although it was in an agricultural area with a large number of Spanish-speaking migrant workers.

This is an extremely sensitive political subject in the United States where there is substantial debate on the subject of language as well as other issues surrounding the large numbers of people crossing the southern border.


----------



## newbold

michimz said:


> That's news to me! What exactly does 'most places' mean?



Most places means most suburban high schools in the northeast (and most of the city high schools as well) either de jure or de facto b/c Spanish is the only foreign language offered. 

after just looking it up I see that a foreign language is not a state requirement in Oregon or Pennsylvania :-o but it is in California and New Jersey (for instance). I can tell you, though, that all of the suburban high schools in PA require it. It's probably a rarity in rural parts of the state.

It's just more to my point about cultural differences in different parts of the US and that this country isn't monolithic and that saying things like "the american education system is bad" doesn't make much sense because there isn't an american education system.


----------



## vampares

There is 12 years of compulsory education (although dropping out is permitted after the 7th or 8th year or at age 16).  The education is provided by to every child.  There is usually an age limit of 19 or 20 for public schooling.  Private schooling and home schooling are alternatives.  The government does not ordinarily subsidize these.  

Subject matter is regulated loosely by federal and state governments and more rigidly in districts.  Manditory subjects include language (reading and writting), mathematics, social subject matters (history, government, culture), sciences, physical education (gym).  Emphasis is roughly in that order.  Other subjects are provided such as music and art.  The intensity, amount of matter and laboriousness varies from bare minimum or, at the students inclination, college preparation and beyond.

Transportation is provided.  At least one meal is provided (usually at cost of ~$3) during a full day of education.  Books are provided (but may be purchased in some instances).  In rare cases uniforms may be provided.

Extra-curricular sporting is popular.  Other activities include marching and playing music, theatrics and such.

Some municipalities provide vocational education, often in a facility that serves several districts.  This vocational training usually consists of 2-4 hours of ordinary academics and 2-4 hours of training in a chosen vocation, ie automotive mechanics, a trade such as carpentry, metal working.  Sometimes this is referred to as "shop class".

Special needs students, physically disabled or mentally challenged students are provided special education.  They have many rights afforded to them by federal law.  In a few metropolitan districts students can choose (or be required to attend) an alternative school.  Reasons for doing so vary, such as sexual preference, religion, etc.

In public schooling it is not permitted to teach religion or otherwise indoctrinate.  Student organization of religious groups or the practice of religion are very limited and highly discouraged but not forbidden, per se.  History of religion or comparison of world cultures in regards to religion is also minimized.

The mention of God (as the object of a preposition) is done, regularly, once a day in the context of the flag and nation in a salutatory oath utter by all students in unison.

----

US education is "public" education.  Unlike countries such as Ireland, which does not provide secondary education, the US prides *it's self* on being the forebarer of knowledge.  There is strong opposition to not only catholic schooling but also teachers.  One means of auditing teachers is through the requirement of bachelors level mathematics (calculus, finite and discreet math) in addition to subject specialty and educational training (~5 years).  Most public schools will not hire teachers who do not have certification.  By and large, this does leave educators who are ambitious and intelligent.  There are relatively fewer "flaky", unqualified, subject-obsessed or severely neurotic educators.  Even language teachers are process oriented and logical.

From that standpoint US education ranges from good to excellent.

School _local_ districts pay for superior educators and facilities.  Only a fraction of the budget is subsidized.  Often the means of levying these funds are through property taxation.  Because these districts are usually residential (or otherwise financially burdened), home owners pay these static taxes.  There is a pressure to minimize these funds, especially if homeowners are elderly or do not utilize the services, or if parents tend to lease their homes.

Quality of education pivots on affluence.  This can segregate communities as parents buy their way into a school district.

This hyper-focused allocation also draws home owners deeper into farming communities and where ever real properties are producing income.  The offset on the taxation, coupled with lower municipal burden and smaller population offers an advantage that cannot be found in "towns" or semi-urban communities.  Further more, class segregation and race segregation follow hand in hand.

----

My criticism of US education is the monolithic approach.  Each grade level is essentially an escalation of the previous one.  12 years is long time to pound 4 or 5 basic subjects into each students head.  There is reiteration and redundancy of the years.  This "liberal arts" approach bottlenecks _again_ in colleges and universities.

Individualism is extreme and sterile.  Since the introduction of "sex education", the life instruction is not existent.

Contrasted with "soviet" style education (the Borg), the US is the Sanitarium of educational standards.


----------



## newbold

Not all high school students recite the pledge of allegiance. Again, that's a regional issue closely related to the politics of the area. 

Strong opposition to catholic schools? Maybe in parts of the country where catholics are a minority but it's certainly not the case in the northeast. I went to catholic school from 4th-8th grade. Half the kids weren't catholic. Their parents sent them there for what they perceived to be a superior education.


----------



## sdgraham

It's not the U.S., but see this _Daily Mail_ article on education.

Once upon a time, the use of good English in the U.S. was considered the mark of an educated person. That link seems to be disappearing.


----------



## zlyice

> after just looking it up I see that a foreign language is not a state requirement in Oregon or Pennsylvania :-o but it is in California and New Jersey (for instance). I can tell you, though, that all of the suburban high schools in PA require it. It's probably a rarity in rural parts of the state.


Actually, I'm not sure all suburban schools _do_ require it.  I attend a high school in suburban Pennsylvania, and we are not required to take any foreign language at all to graduate, although 3 years is highly recommended.  That said, 5 different languages (Spanish, French, German, Latin, and, more recently, Chinese) are offered and most people do take some language.


----------



## newbold

zlyice said:


> Actually, I'm not sure all suburban schools _do_ require it.  I attend a high school in suburban Pennsylvania, and we are not required to take any foreign language at all to graduate, although 3 years is highly recommended.  That said, 5 different languages (Spanish, French, German, Latin, and, more recently, Chinese) are offered and most people do take some language.



You live in the Philadelphia suburbs? Like i said, it's not a state requirement, that means it's up to the school district to decide whether or not to require a foreign language. In places where property values are closely connected to the quality (or perception of quality) of the education at the local school district, most school boards, vis-a-vis local property owners, make it a requirement.


----------



## zlyice

newbold said:


> You live in the Philadelphia suburbs? Like i said, it's not a state requirement, that means it's up to the school district to decide whether or not to require a foreign language. In places where property values are closely connected to the quality (or perception of quality) of the education at the local school district, most school boards, vis-a-vis local property owners, make it a requirement.


Harrisburg suburbs, actually.  Languages are not a graduation requirement here, but, on the contrary to what you mentioned, the level of education often does reflect what sort of property or house a person will be able to buy.


----------



## tvdxer

vampares said:


> There is 12 years of compulsory education (although dropping out is permitted after the 7th or 8th year or at age 16).  The education is provided by to every child.  There is usually an age limit of 19 or 20 for public schooling.  Private schooling and home schooling are alternatives.  The government does not ordinarily subsidize these.



As far as I know, you can't legally drop out before age 16.



> Subject matter is regulated loosely by federal and state governments and more rigidly in districts.  Manditory subjects include language (reading and writting), mathematics, social subject matters (history, government, culture), sciences, physical education (gym).  Emphasis is roughly in that order.  Other subjects are provided such as music and art.  The intensity, amount of matter and laboriousness varies from bare minimum or, at the students inclination, college preparation and beyond.



That's true.  One thing that needs to be emphasized is how much variation there is between states, and even between school districts.  Unlike in some countries where education is federally controlled and standardized (e.g. France), school districts in the U.S. (which are independent, albeit government-funded entities) have a great amount of latitude in deciding what to teach, what courses to offer, etc.  The state government often sets standards, for example, how much physical education students or math students must take, but for the most part does not issue curriculum (with exceptions).  

Also, while the United States does not have officially-designated "gymnasium", "hochschule", etc. schools like Germany does, within a single high school the average student will have a wide range of choices.  There are requirements, and some courses that must absolutely be taken, but for the rest of the day, students can choose what classes they want to take.  Most schools offer "Advanced Placement" or "College in the Schools" for more advanced or serious students, as well as special-education / remedial-type classes for those who have fallen behind, in addition to a normal track.  



> Transportation is provided.  At least one meal is provided (usually at cost of ~$3) during a full day of education.  Books are provided (but may be purchased in some instances).  In rare cases uniforms may be provided.
> 
> Extra-curricular sporting is popular.  Other activities include marching and playing music, theatrics and such.



Very true.  Virtually all high and middle schools have a wide selection of extracurriculars.  Sports are the most common and have been the subject of many high school movies.  From my school I can remember girl's / boy's basketball, football, girl's / boy's hockey, girl's / boy's soccer, tennis, golf, cross-country, track, dance, and cheerleading being offered, often with several levels - varsity, junior varsity, 9th grade, in addition to theater, knowledge bowl, math league, etc.  



> Some municipalities provide vocational education, often in a facility that serves several districts.  This vocational training usually consists of 2-4 hours of ordinary academics and 2-4 hours of training in a chosen vocation, ie automotive mechanics, a trade such as carpentry, metal working.  Sometimes this is referred to as "shop class".



This is also very much in agreement with my own experience, up to the part where a single facility serves several districts (as in Duluth).  Some other programs I remembered being offered were nursing and floral design, or something like that.

The "shop class" is a bit different in my experience, however - "shop" for me was "Industrial Tech", a class all students at my middle school had to take each year, where they did things like woodworking, welding, video editing, etc.



> Special needs students, physically disabled or mentally challenged students are provided special education.  They have many rights afforded to them by federal law.  In a few metropolitan districts students can choose (or be required to attend) an alternative school.  Reasons for doing so vary, such as sexual preference, religion, etc.
> 
> In public schooling it is not permitted to teach religion or otherwise indoctrinate.  Student organization of religious groups or the practice of religion are very limited and highly discouraged but not forbidden, per se.  History of religion or comparison of world cultures in regards to religion is also minimized.



I don't know if I would say that such groups were "highly discouraged" at my public school, but religion in such contexts was a touchy issue.



> The mention of God (as the object of a preposition) is done, regularly, once a day in the context of the flag and nation in a salutatory oath utter by all students in unison.



In some schools.  



> ----
> 
> US education is "public" education.  Unlike countries such as Ireland, which does not provide secondary education, the US prides *it's self* on being the forebarer of knowledge.  There is strong opposition to not only catholic schooling but also teachers.  One means of auditing teachers is through the requirement of bachelors level mathematics (calculus, finite and discreet math) in addition to subject specialty and educational training (~5 years).  Most public schools will not hire teachers who do not have certification.  By and large, this does leave educators who are ambitious and intelligent.  There are relatively fewer "flaky", unqualified, subject-obsessed or severely neurotic educators.  Even language teachers are process oriented and logical.



A strong opposition to Catholic schooling?  Not in my experience.  In fact, many non-Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools to receive a better education.  I would even bet many Catholic schools have a non-Catholic majority.


----------



## Словеса

Hello,


Pedro y La Torre said:


> Although, there are some shocking examples such as 63 per cent of Americans aged 18 to 24 being unable to locate Iraq on a map.


It seems that the study didn't study what it said it did. Actually, it was a test on being more or less political or apolitical! Well, at least I guess so. It's not a surprise that many people turned to be apolitical: the fundamental principle of democracy says, "the majority does not care". Until something goes very-very wrong, I mean... Now, see how nicely it fits with the data: people who make more effort to know news perform better on the test; people who receive more education (and thus are supposed to receive positions of command on other people) perform better; men (the same point) perform the same on hypothetical questions, but better on the actual ones; immigrated people (the same point, but in the reverse) perform worse.

Well, this one ("one in five cannot find the Pacific Ocean.") shows there is something with not willing to care about basic geographical knowledge, too. Is this extraordinary? I don't know... I was (slightly) shocked. But not being able to find Iraq on a map without place names does not sound shocking to me.


----------



## stevenvh

My 18-old niece went to the US to study one year in college (in Alabama). She's not particularly gifted, but nevertheless got nothing but A's and B's without a minute of studying. She told me that the level of difficulty was never higher than what she had experienced in high school here in Belgium.


----------



## More od Solzi

American colleges, law schools and medical schools are the best in the world.


----------



## stevenvh

More od Solzi said:


> American colleges, law schools and medical schools are the best in the world.



Since you mention three different categories I gather that this is not from personal experience. Can you give us the source for that claim?


----------



## More od Solzi

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking

Percentage of American universities:

in top 10: 70%
in top 20: 75%


----------



## JamesM

Here is another article on the topic of medical schools:

http://www.topuniversities.com/univ...ity-subject-rankings/top-medical-schools-2014

From the article:



> Of the 201 universities ranked among the world’s top medical schools in 2014, almost a quarter (48) are in the US, 25 in the UK, 19 in Germany, 11 in Canada, 10 in Japan and 9 in Australia. A total of 32 countries feature in the ranking, though just 13 nations have a medical school ranked within the global top 50; the countries already mentioned are joined at this level by Denmark, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and Taiwan.



Here is the same site's ranking of universities globally.  Of the top 10, 6 are in the U.S. and 4 are in the U.K.   I find that surprising because I would expect to see more of a mixture of countries.

http://www.topuniversities.com/univ...region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=


It is a quirk of the U.S. education system that our primary and secondary schools are sub-par and our universities are excellent.  As a result, many university students in the U.S. come from other countries.


----------



## stevenvh

http://dumbesttweets.com/

This doesn't say anything about college (indeed, many of these tweeters probably didn't even finish high school), but it clearly shows that education in the US leaves a lot to be desired.
(Not only school dropouts, but many, if not most, of them seem to be black. It looks like No Child Left Behind is one big failure.)


----------



## JamesM

It's not just education but a culture that doesn't value education.  It's possible to get a very good education but it's also possible to just drift through the system from beginning to end without learning anything but the minimum. 

"No Child Left Behind" is indeed a big failure, partly because it punishes schools for having _any_ low-performing students.  The onus is on the school to make the child learn, which is impossible.  It's absurd; no one can be made to learn if they don't want to learn. It judges a school by its lowest-performing students rather than its highest or its average performers.  Combine that with a culture that in many segments doesn't value education and you have a downward spiral effect.  

I have a friend who teaches high school mathematics.  Even though his department is able to move a child 2.5 years forward in a single year, due to heavy concentration on remedial math and special educational techniques, the fact that many of the students come in to high school (14 years old) with a 4th grade level of math (a 9-year-old) means that they are marked as deficient when the student tests at a 7th grade level at the end of the 9th grade.  The school loses funding, is marked as "under-performing" by the state and, if the trend continues over several years, the school is taken over by the state, the teachers are fired and a new batch is brought in.  No school that has been taken over by the state has improved after takeover, but that hasn't changed the process.  The funding that would have gone to special programs for high-performing students is cut to focus all efforts on the non-performers in order to get them to pass the annual tests.

There is no consequence to the child if they don't perform.  It is impossible to fail a year and have to repeat it, as children had to do when I was in school.  That was ruled detrimental to their self-esteem.  As a result, if a child refuses to learn and the parents have no interest in getting involved in the problem, the child continues to move from grade to grade, even if he fails every year, and ends up leaving school with very little education, and the school that is unfortunate enough to have that child is punished for all twelve years that child is in their district, along with all the high-performing students in that district. And to add insult to injury, that child can turn around and sue the school district for having failed to educate him.  The concept of personal responsibility is completely lost in this system.

It's a ridiculous set-up.  If I were a conspiracy theorist I would think it was designed to make the schools fail.

That's why I think Obama's initiative, "Race To The Top", is a better concept, although in practice I don't think it has made much of a difference.


----------



## chamyto

One partner sent her niece to the USA for this term to a high-school. Is it true that pupils do not take exams? If so, how are they evaluated?


----------



## JamesM

It's absolutely untrue that pupils do not take exams.   They spend most of the year focusing on the material that will be on the national standardized exams.  Oddly, our system seems a bit weird in how it deals with the results of these tests.  There are no consequences to the students, but there are severe consequences for the teachers and the school district, including loss of funds and, in the case of continued poor performance, state government takeover of the school.


----------



## chamyto

Correct me if I'm wrong, JamesM . Do you mean that pupils only take one exam of the specific subject?

In Spain, pupils usually take several exams for the same subject.


----------



## JamesM

No, they take exams throughout the year in preparation for the major annual exam and also to confirm that they have learned smaller portions of the subject.  They also have daily homework.  They also write papers and do projects.  I'm surprised that there is any high school in the U.S. where this process isn't followed.  Are you sure your partner's niece wasn't excused from the exams because she was visiting?


----------



## chamyto

She has made something like an academic exchange in the USA. She is living in a host family and she will convalidate this term when returning to Spain.

From uncle's words:  XXX (the name of the girl) says that pupils do not take exams, opposite as it happens here in Spain.


----------



## Mrs JJJ

I think that the standardized tests to which JamesM refers are rather different from what many Europeans understand by "exams".  The standardized tests are tests in certain specific subjects, but their principal function is as a tool to measure a _school's_ alleged success, rather than as a measure of the achievement of individual students. Parents are informed of their students' overall scores, but, as James explained, the test results are largely irrelevant to the students' academic careers. (When my children were at school, students in California who achieved high scores in certain tests were given small amounts of scholarship money for college, but I'm not sure whether that is still the case.)  The overall results are, however, very important to the schools, because their funding can depend on them. As a result, the tests are very controversial, because people feel that too much classroom time is spent coaching students for the tests instead of teaching them other material which they should be learning. And since only certain basic subjects are tested, those where there are no standardized tests suffer.  And currently,  the results of the standardized tests don't count towards a student's  final high school diploma. 

The big difference between US and many other countries is that individual students' achievement is measured less by exams than by continuous assessment. This probably explains why foreigners are sometimes given the impression that American students do not take exams.  

In the US, a student who is brilliant but very lazy will find it hard to succeed in high school. Why? Although he will probably take an end-of-year exam (usually called a "final") in each subject, just as most of his European counterparts do, achieving  a very high score on the exam will not be enough for him to pass the class. Because his grade on _every single homework assignment _will also count towards his final grade. And, in my experience, US students with high aspirations have to do a LOT of homework! (Too much, in my opinion. )   The system is by no means foolproof, because some teachers allow a lot of "extra credit" to enable failing students to make up missing homework points, and some administrators put pressure on teachers to pass students who are failing (especially if they are stars of the sports teams). But in general, academic success in US high schools depends on hard work, as well as natural ability.

One can achieve a high-school diploma without taking any external examinations, just those set by one's teachers. 

However, towards the end of high school, the most able students take external examinations that are closer to what people from other countries often understand by the term "exam". The best-known of these are the Advanced Placement examinations ("AP"s).  They have a syllabus, set by an outside body, are graded by outside examiners, and students all over the US take the same exam on the same day.  Almost all college-bound students take important, largely multiple-choice, tests called the SATs, which are also external examinations. There are two types.  SAT 1 tests are basically a type of intelligence test, assessing things such as verbal reasoning and mathematical ability, plus a writing component.  SAT II tests are subject-based and students choose which subjects, if any,  they wish to take.  Their scores on the SAT I  are crucial for college applications. Students can take the tests multiple times, but obviously, too many attempts will not impress admissions officers.  


When my son applied to UK universities, his SAT I and AP scores were those that the colleges were interested in, because good grades in the APs were akin to UK Advanced Level examination passes.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

More od Solzi said:


> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking
> 
> Percentage of American universities:
> 
> in top 10: 70%
> in top 20: 75%



Yes, but how many Americans can attend these top 10 universities without going bankrupt? The cost of what we in Ireland call ''third-level education'' in the United States (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) is obscene.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, it is obscene. Our son, through hard work, frugality and quite a bit of help from us will still probably leave university owing $40,000, and that's remarkably low for students his age.


----------



## Uriel-

I have only attended American schools and universities, so I wouldn't have a basis for comparison.  But in my experience, you as the student get out of your education whatever you put into it.  The opportunity to learn and learn a lot is always there.  Or, if you so choose, you can skate by with just the bare minimum needed to pass.  It's up to you.


----------



## LaVache

gorbatzjov said:


> To my opinion and experience, (public) high school in the USA is really bad. I lived for a while in Oregon with a hostfamily and their daughter couldn't go to school on Friday's because the State didn't have enough money!!! And that's the USA we're talking about, not Ruanda or Ghana.
> 
> The Universities are among the best of the world - according to different rankings. Some thoughts:
> - Especially private univerisities are quoted as very good. But how many people can pay the thousands of dollars tuition fee? Doesn't this ultra-liberalisation of education make it bad, or at least less good. It sure brings down the average educational level of the country...
> - Rankings are mainly done by American newspapers, politicians, ... or at least rankings are made by American standards, not European or Asian standards.
> 
> Any more thoughts/ideas?



It depends on where you live. Wealthy people live together and send their kids to the same schools. Those schools are good. The schools poor people go to on the other hand are very bad.


----------



## Uriel-

You usually have a mix of demographics in a public school.


----------



## fdb

Some inferences can be made from the PISA tests organised by the OECD for school children in most of the developed countries. Firmly at the top of the tables we find the Chinese-speaking (China, Taiwan, Singapore) and Sinicised countries (Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam not far behind). In a second cluster we find the West-European countries, Australia, and a few Eastern-European ones (Estonia). Quite significantly far behind are the two “super” powers (US and Russia) and a few others. And then there is fourth group at the bottom of the list.


----------



## LaVache

Uriel- said:


> You usually have a mix of demographics in a public school.



Well, not so much in New York. http://www.aqeny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/final-final-record-setting-inequality.pdf


----------



## merquiades

chamyto said:


> One partner sent her niece to the USA for this term to a high-school. Is it true that pupils do not take exams? If so, how are they evaluated?


Oh, yes.  There are lots and lots of exams.  I must have taken 2 million in school.  Sometimes there was one every other week in some subjects, usually whenever we finished a chapter.

There were nationalized exams given at the end of the year in a variety of subjects (called Stanine I think), but I cannot remember them being important for me.  You couldn't study for them and they did not count on school report cards.



			
				Uriel- said:
			
		

> I have only attended American schools and universities, so I wouldn't have a basis for comparison. But in my experience, you as the student get out of your education whatever you put into it. The opportunity to learn and learn a lot is always there. Or, if you so choose, you can skate by with just the bare minimum needed to pass. It's up to you.


 I could not agree more with this statement.  It is totally up to the individual to get what he can out of his education at school in the US.  The tools and encouragement are given to him to excel, but if the student chooses not to care he can get by with the basics and he will eventually finish high school anyway.


----------



## Uriel-

There are tons of tests and exams during every year of high school, but no big cumulative exam at the end.  As you pass each class, you rack up the credits necessary to graduate.  It's just like college.

That said, there are a couple if big tests that are not part of your high school grades that you will have to take in order to get into college.  They will look at those scores, your grade point average in high school, any extracurricular activities you were involved in, and usually make you write an essay as part of your application.


----------



## Uriel-

LaVache said:


> Well, not so much in New York. http://www.aqeny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/final-final-record-setting-inequality.pdf



That may be.  I can only go off of my experience, where the local demographics seemed pretty well represented in my schools.  My elementary school in Virginia had lots of black and white students.  My middle schools in upstate were overwhelmingly white, but so was the local population.  My DoD high school was on an army base in Japan and maybe half of my peers were white, Asian, and black, while the other half were half Asian and half white or half black. My class president was black. My two California universities were mixed, and my New Mexico university was predominately hispanic and white (we have a hispanic majority here).  All but one of my schools were public.  I think I got a pretty fair slice of life out of them.


----------

