# Why are Finnish students smarter then the rest of the world?



## Makalakumu (Oct 6, 2010)

http://tinyurl.com/2cfy62b




> High-school students here rarely get more than a half-hour of  homework a night. They have no school uniforms, no honor societies, no  valedictorians, no tardy bells and no classes for the gifted. There is  little standardized testing, few parents agonize over college and kids  don't start school until age 7.
> 
> 
> Yet by one international measure, Finnish teenagers are among the  smartest in the world. They earned some of the top scores by 15-year-old  students who were tested in 57 countries. American teens finished among  the world's C students even as U.S. educators piled on more homework,  standards and rules. Finnish youth, like their U.S. counterparts, also  waste hours online. They dye their hair, love sarcasm and listen to rap  and heavy metal. But by ninth grade they're way ahead in math, science  and reading -- on track to keeping Finns among the world's most  productive workers.



The article makes a strong argument against overbearing bureaucracies cramming "standards" down the throats of teachers as well as trying to control the process from thousands of miles away.

Thoughts?


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 6, 2010)

How homogeneous is Finnish society in terms of social and economic backgrounds?


----------



## Carol (Oct 6, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> How homogeneous is Finnish society in terms of social and economic backgrounds?



Extremely.  

Finland has its own "institutionalized racism" as well.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 6, 2010)

Carol said:


> Extremely.
> 
> Finland has its own "institutionalized racism" as well.


 
The same could be said for Japan. But the approach to education couldn`t be more different. Here we have uniforms, constant standardized testing, students either get tons of homework or they attend special private cram schools in the evening. And yet both systems seem to produce better test scores than the US. I think the biggest deciding factor is parental involvment and support of the kids` education. That`s where I`ve seen the biggest differences in the US and here in Japan. I may be wrong, but I kind of assumed it was a universal factor.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 6, 2010)

The 'trick', I think, is not to have being smart seen to be 'uncool'.  That is the factor that comes in when educational achievements are high on average.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 7, 2010)

The Finnish students aren't smarter than than any other students they are simply well educated.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 7, 2010)

> Another difference is financial. Each school year, the U.S. spends an average of $8,700 per student, while the Finns spend $7,500. Finland's high-tax government provides roughly equal per-pupil funding, unlike the disparities between Beverly Hills public schools, for example, and schools in poorer districts. The gap between Finland's best- and worst-performing schools was the smallest of any country in the PISA testing. The U.S. ranks about average.


 
See, we're spending too much on schools.  Lower the education budget and we'll be smart like the Finns.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 7, 2010)

How many Finnish flags are there on the moon?

End of 'who is smarter' argument.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 7, 2010)

A great many people educated in many countries worked on the moon projectas well as Americans. The money of course was American.

Btw how many of you use Nokia phones or enjoy a sauna, both very civilised additions to the human condition.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> A great many people educated in many countries worked on the moon projectas well as Americans. The money of course was American.



The fact that we have all the money should be sufficient evidence as to  how it got that way.  When I see the flag of another nation flying on  the moon, I will be willing to discuss how 'smart' they are relative to  us.  I hear China is getting close - moon and money-wise.



> Btw how many of you use Nokia phones or enjoy a sauna, both very civilised additions to the human condition.



I thought the question was over intelligence, not relative level of civilization.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 7, 2010)

I would be interested in seeing how subjects in these two countries are actually being taught, not just how much homework they have.  Not only that, but what are the educational expectations from their culture.  

A lot of these issues are cultural, not just "bureaucratic".  And in the U.S., the culture is different based on where you are in the country.  You'll often find that what works in one geographical location does not work in another.  In that respect, *maunakumu* is correct.  It is ridiculous to have one government bureaucratic mandate from one side of the country to the other.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 7, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would be interested in seeing how subjects in these two countries are actually being taught, not just how much homework they have.  Not only that, but what are the educational expectations from their culture.
> 
> A lot of these issues are cultural, not just "bureaucratic".  And in the U.S., the culture is different based on where you are in the country.  You'll often find that what works in one geographical location does not work in another.  In that respect, *maunakumu* is correct.  It is ridiculous to have one government bureaucratic mandate from one side of the country to the other.



QFT.

As an aside...

When I was serving in the military in Japan, we noted the harshness of the Japanese penal system.  We were told (not sure how true it is, but this is what we were told) that the Japanese had modeled their penal system after the 'chain gang' system used in Louisiana during the 1920s.  In Japan, there is a very very low recidivism rate.  In fact, we were told that once during WWII, a US bombing mission knocked down the walls of a prison, and the prisoners not only did not escape, they helped to rebuild the walls.

Why, if Japan modeled their prison system after our own, do they have a much lower recidivism rate than we do - even lower than we did back when they copied it from us?  In other words, our system worked better for them than it ever did for us.  So why?

Some say it is because of cultural differences.  Although Japan is changing, to a large extent, people convicted of crimes ARE SORRY that they are criminals and take responsibility.

I do know that when I was on Okinawa in the mid 1980's, the government of Japan maintained a monopoly on tobacco.  People found black-marketing cigarettes faced a mandatory 1 year prison sentence - US military as well as Japanese civilians.  However, if you were caught and convicted (they have a 90+% conviction rate), you could get it suspended if you apologized to the court.  Americans found this crazy.  Apologize and get off?  Wow!  But in Japan, an apology means something.  Here, it doesn't.

My point is that cultural differences mean that the same techniques that work in one place may well not work in another - not because the technique is flawed, but because people are different depending on where they live, how they were raised, what they value.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How many Finnish flags are there on the moon?
> 
> End of 'who is smarter' argument.



Please Bill. You are an intelligent man. The flag on the moon has NOTHING to do with a supposed intelligence difference, and everything with gianormous funding that was spent on a race with the soviets.

But even if it was true in the 60s (which it wasn't but ok...) then the US is rapidly losing that intellectually dominant position to the Europeans and the Chinese.

You know both of these things, so I am wondering why you posted this in the first place.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The fact that we have all the money should be sufficient evidence as to  how it got that way.  When I see the flag of another nation flying on  the moon, I will be willing to discuss how 'smart' they are relative to  us.  I hear China is getting close - moon and money-wise.



The money is more a testament to greed and might-makes-right thinking.
Your economy is propped up by the Saudis who still trade in dollars, rather than Euros. If they switched to Euros tomorrow, the dollar would plummet.

But still, an achievement 50 years ago does not reflect on the state of US education today.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You know both of these things, so I am wondering why you posted this in the first place.



If higher test scores indicates (the subject line of the thread) that Finnish students are 'smarter' than the rest of the world, then I posit that our accomplishments prove that the USA is smarter.  Both are equally ludicrous.

However, one can argue that 'smartness' is exhibited by accomplishments, not by potential.  If that is the case, then my argument actually has some meaning.  By every measure of material accomplishments, the USA leads all other nations (even if this is not going to be true much longer).

One might also consider why so many people of various nationalities find it important to attend US universities and colleges, particularly for technical and scientific education.  I'm struggling to think of that world-class Finnish university that all the US students flock to...

And of course, I'm a complete drum-beating, flag-waving, USA-loving American.  For all our problems, I think we're the bee's knees and I'll tell anyone that.  Love to all, respect for everyone, but the USA is tops in everything.  We're just great all the way around.  Yay us.


----------



## crushing (Oct 7, 2010)

From the article:


> College is free.


 
:lfao:


----------



## Cirdan (Oct 7, 2010)

The Finnish, our good neighbors, are smart because:

1: 10 months a year it is too cold there to go outside to play
2: Finnish TV shows are boring as hell

So then there is little to do but to study (while you sit in the sauna and drink Koskenkorva)


----------



## Omar B (Oct 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Please Bill. You are an intelligent man. *The flag on the moon has NOTHING to do with a supposed intelligence difference, and everything with gianormous funding that was spent on a race with the soviets.*
> But even if it was true in the 60s (which it wasn't but ok...) then the US is rapidly losing that intellectually dominant position to the Europeans and the Chinese.
> You know both of these things, so I am wondering why you posted this in the first place.




Yes, but you can't throw money down every hole and have it plugged.  I find Bill's analogy to work better than yours because clearly money didn't make it happen alone.  Money no matter how large the pile does not fix things on it's own.  Plus we have to look at the cause/source of that money, not just tax dollars, but major investments from engineering and aircraft firms who knew what they were doing.

If you think going to the moon in an unfair way of measuring a society then you must hold these test scores in the same contempt.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If higher test scores indicates (the subject line of the thread) that Finnish students are 'smarter' than the rest of the world, then I posit that our accomplishments prove that the USA is smarter.  Both are equally ludicrous.



Ah ok my mistake. I missed that. I knew something wasn't right.



Bill Mattocks said:


> One might also consider why so many people of various nationalities find it important to attend US universities and colleges, particularly for technical and scientific education.  I'm struggling to think of that world-class Finnish university that all the US students flock to...



The US is a popular destination because having studied / worked abroad works wonders for your resume here. The US is a favorite because the cultures are fairly compatible and there is no language barrier.
Japan for example would be equally prestigious if not more, but the language is a huge obstable, and the culture shock can be quite severe. China is getting to be more popular in recent years though. I suspect that it will draw a good amount of students in the near future. A big part for that reason is that China is becoming a big investor in the European markets. And if you know the language and act as a 'functional ambassador', you can get very wealthy indeed, no matter what specialization you majored in.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And of course, I'm a complete drum-beating, flag-waving, USA-loving American.  For all our problems, I think we're the bee's knees and I'll tell anyone that.  Love to all, respect for everyone, but the USA is tops in everything.  We're just great all the way around.  Yay us.



Sure. When it comes to blowing things up and outspending your adversaries, you ar enumber 1. But Belgium rules where it really matters: we got the worlds best chocolate, beer, waffles, and things like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 7, 2010)

The reason I posted about about the Nokia and the sauna is because Finland gave us both.

It's fine talking up your own country but denigrating other countries to make yours look better is an iffy way of doing it.

I doubt any countries students are 'smarter' than other's or more intelligent, the difference is in the education system so that some countries students are better educated than others. Saying one country is 'smarter' than another sounds racist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Sure. When it comes to blowing things up and outspending your adversaries, you ar enumber 1. But Belgium rules where it really matters: we got the worlds best chocolate, beer, waffles, and things like that.



Which we buy from them.  We are demand, they are supply.  This is how it should be.  Make stuff for us.  Thank you.


----------



## crushing (Oct 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Sure. When it comes to blowing things up and outspending your adversaries, you ar enumber 1. But Belgium rules where it really matters: we got the worlds best chocolate, *beer*, waffles, and things like that.


 
Smart enough to not have prohibition or some silly purity law (which was really a tax scheme) ruin or retard the art and science of zymurgy.  I must say that the US has come a long way in regards to beer in the last 25 years though.

Now, for me to make an educated comparison between the US and Belgium please send me some Trappist Westvleteren 12 and maybe a couple others that you think best represent what Belgium has to offer.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 7, 2010)

If I could, I would. Sadly, West Vleteren is almost impossible to get, even for us. But your post gave me an idea and I am going to put myself on the waiting list, and hopefully I'll be able to buy some in a couple of months.

I actually played with the idea of sending beer to my fellow forum members on another forum, but that is problematic because of US customs which has an issue with people mailing alcohol.

Still, If you want I can send you a couple of bottles of West Vleteren, if and when I can get them, at cost but without guarantees. I.e. if they get 'lost' in shipping or the customs department wants import fees, it is not my problem. Drop me a PM and we can discuss the details.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One might also consider why so many people of various nationalities find it important to attend US universities and colleges, particularly for technical and scientific education.  I'm struggling to think of that world-class Finnish university that all the US students flock to...



 you can argue about the judging criteria but here are a couple of lists of university rankings and Bill is correct, the preponderance of them are American.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results

 Finland`s University of Helsinki comes in around 75 and 102.

  Of course a wealthy university can attract the best academics so if research and publications are weighted highly those universities will come out on top.  It might be interesting to see a list based just on quality of undergraduate education.  (Harvard As....)


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

I see my uni is 149th! many of the British universities on that list are actually small in fact very small compared to the American ones and as pointed out have far less money to attract the 'stars' of the academic world. I believe too that American universities have a huge amount of scholarships to award to attract students, ours don't. You don't get into a British uni just because you are good at a sport, it's academic qualifications only that get you in. There's been students here that have failed to get into British unis but have gone to America and been accepted, now does that mean your standards are lower or that you simply have more places available or you can just buy your way in?

What qualifications do you need to get into an American university and what qualifications do they offer? 
These people say they will give you an automatic place at an American university, all you have to do is pay.
http://www.cepascourses.com/fsc/


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I see my uni is 149th! many of the British universities on that list are actually small in fact very small compared to the American ones and as pointed out have far less money to attract the 'stars' of the academic world.



 It might be interesting to find out how many academic stars in US universities are "home grown" and how many are foreign trained.   In general it seems that the UK pays its academics so poorly that they have a serious "brain drain" going on.

  eg. physicist Joao Magueijo in his book and engineering professor Nick Hitchon of the Up series have publicly said that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> There's been students here that have failed to get into British unis but have gone to America and been accepted, now does that mean your standards are lower or that you simply have more places available or you can just buy your way in?



Doesn't matter - it's not the quality of the students, it's the quality of the instruction.  The universities that make all the money can also attract and pay the best instructors.  That does not mean that there are not excellent instructors at every level, in all sorts of settings, but when money is involved, you can indeed buy the best and that's what the richest universities do.

The top-end universities can also afford to buy the best equipment and fund the best working environments if you're talking about hard sciences and so on which require things like particle accelerators and whiz-bang gadgets.  So again, this has the synergistic effect of attracting the top-end teaching talent, the best post-grad type students, and even the best research grants and outside-funded experiments.  Let's face it, the USA has a stranglehold on this.

Changing?  Yes, it is changing.  I do not argue with those who say that China is on the rise.  I am also quite aware of the fact that we do not have as many post-grad hard sciences students in our own universities as we do those from other countries.  They come here, learn from us, and go home; we lose brain power yearly.  However, if Americans want to sit in front of the TV and watch the game and drink beer, so be it.

For the moment though, the USA still rules the education game.  We're the smartest, and by a lot.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> .
> 
> Changing?  Yes, it is changing.  I do not argue with those who say that China is on the rise.  I am also quite aware of the fact that we do not have as many post-grad hard sciences students in our own universities as we do those from other countries.



   I suspect your bright students are being lost to finance.  Back in the 60s engineering and science were the hot careers,  then it was law ,  now it appears finance takes the cream of the crop.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Doesn't matter - it's not the quality of the students, it's the quality of the instruction. The universities that make all the money can also attract and pay the best instructors. That does not mean that there are not excellent instructors at every level, in all sorts of settings, but when money is involved, you can indeed buy the best and that's what the richest universities do.
> 
> The top-end universities can also afford to buy the best equipment and fund the best working environments if you're talking about hard sciences and so on which require things like particle accelerators and whiz-bang gadgets. So again, this has the synergistic effect of attracting the top-end teaching talent, the best post-grad type students, and even the best research grants and outside-funded experiments. Let's face it, the USA has a stranglehold on this.
> 
> ...


 

However the OP is about students and while the instruction may be from very good people it doesn't mean much if the students are there to play sport and are as thick as two short planks. The OP is also about education not research or fantastic facilities, it's about the students, what they learn which means that America doesn't have the best educated students does it, if all many are doing is playing sport for their university or don't have to have any qualifications to actually get into university. Being able to pay money and turn up doesn't make students 'smart', it means they have rich parents.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> However the OP is about students and while the instruction may be from very good people it doesn't mean much if the students are there to play sport and are as thick as two short planks. The OP is also about education not research or fantastic facilities, it's about the students, what they learn which means that America doesn't have the best educated students does it, if all many are doing is playing sport for their university or don't have to have any qualifications to actually get into university. Being able to pay money and turn up doesn't make students 'smart', it means they have rich parents.



Well, America is the best (at more or less everything) and that's pretty much that.  I realize it causes people in other countries to feel badly about themselves.  Perhaps it's a hate crime to be American and know you're the best.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> However the OP is about students and while the instruction may be from very good people it doesn't mean much if the students are there to play sport and are as thick as two short planks. .



  LOL....raises an interesting question, is it better to have a generally better educated population or a small extremely educated class.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Doesn't matter - it's not the quality of the students, it's the quality of the instruction.  The universities that make all the money can also attract and pay the best instructors.



Heh, if only that were true.  The largest and richest universities also proportionally use grad students far more often to teach courses.  That's because the largest universities recruit the best academics, and the best academics are not the best teachers.  Indeed, taking the time to become an excellent teacher will preclude almost every professor from being the best academic.  Tenure and advancement are decided mostly by research and grant productivity.  The best academics however bring in the most prestige and the most grant money, which further enhances the prestige of the university.  

At the end of the day, that's what the largest universities are selling - not quality instruction, but prestige.  The scions of the wealthy aren't going to Harvard to learn the most, they are going to Harvard so they can say they graduated from Harvard and use that network and prestige to their advantage.  If they wanted to learn the most, they would be going to a small liberal arts college where every course was taught by a professor, not a grad student you can barely understand who is only teaching the course so they can survive long enough to finish their research.  Or they would be going to MIT, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon or another university with extremely rigorous academic standards.  Harvard's standards for one are a joke.  Grade inflation is rampant.  The hard part is getting into Harvard, not graduating and learning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> At the end of the day, that's what the largest universities are selling - not quality instruction, but prestige.



That's certainly part of it, but my local community college doesn't have a particle accelerator, know what I mean?  The biggest - for whatever reason - get the equipment, the contracts, the teachers, and attract the star post-grad students.  For undergrads, sure, they get the sons and daughters of the idle rich as well as the bright ones.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Heh, if only that were true.  The largest and richest universities also proportionally use grad students far more often to teach courses.  That's because the largest universities recruit the best academics, and the best academics are not the best teachers. .



 True,  I went to a large research university (university of Toronto) where instruction was regarded as an annoyance and the general attitude of the professors was that undergraduates were barely more than pond scum where the best  thing to do was flunk as many as they could so they didn't have as many to teach the next year.

  Now they need undergraduates to keep their funding up so the general attitude the way I understand it is the profs give out inflated grades with the understanding that the undergrads don't bother them.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> LOL....raises an interesting question, is it better to have a generally better educated population or a small extremely educated class.


 

Good education for all! Education shouldn't be elitest, it should be for everyone.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Good education for all! Education shouldn't be elitest, it should be for everyone.



  I agree with you completely Tez,  I was trying to get to that we seemed to have reached the consensus that the general population is better educated in most advanced countries than the US,  but the US attracts the really highly educated with its bucks.

  And as Bill is gleefully pointing out (its getting a bit annoying actually), the US is economically and educationally dominant. They do have the best of the best.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Good education for all! Education shouldn't be elitest, it should be for everyone.



See, that's a problem.

You can't give everyone a high-quality education.

First, many people don't want it.

Second, many aren't up to it.

And third - yes, I know this sounds awful - but the world needs ditch-diggers and crap-shovelers.  The world cannot be made up of entirely white-collar professionals with middle-class incomes.  Someone must server fries at McDonalds.

It is important to provide education, yes.  The opportunity must exist for all, regardless of race, religion, sex, etc.  It is also important that it be difficult enough to obtain that only those who want it and can learn the material get it.

Sad but true - we need a lot of poor people to support an economic pyramid.  The poor are generally the uneducated or the undereducated.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> And as Bill is gleefully pointing out (its getting a bit annoying actually), the US is economically and educationally dominant. They do have the best of the best.



Sorry, I'll stop now and revert to my usual annoying drum-beating for the US Marine Corps, Isshin-Ryu, and the state of Michigan being the best...hehehe.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> I agree with you completely Tez, I was trying to get to that we seemed to have reached the consensus that the general population is better educated in most advanced countries than the US, but the US attracts the really highly educated with its bucks.
> 
> And as Bill is gleefully pointing out (its getting a bit annoying actually), the US is economically and educationally dominant. They do have the best of the best.


 

Are you so sure they do? a nation of people who don't actually know where their soldiers are fighting and dying doesn't seem to be awfully well educated/smart to my mind!

As is always the case the Americans have the biggest and the most expensive, that doesn't equate to being the best. It gives them bragging rights only in that they have more money and as I was brought up a good middle class English girl I think it's terribly vulgar to boast about how much money one has.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> See, that's a problem.
> 
> You can't give everyone a high-quality education.
> 
> ...


 

Why do you associate education with the job a person does? I think you mean job training not education. Your understanding of education is flawed, you take it to mean the training to be a lawyer or doctor not the education of the mind. A ditch digger can be highly educated, it has nothing to do with what job he does. He could read Proust or Homer, he could be knowledgable about geography, he could be an expert of history so why does what job he does have anything to do with it. A lawyer can be woefully ignorant, knowing nothing. A doctor too can be ignorant, ill educated but a very well trained doctor.

Education is more than learning to do a job, it's about learning about life and everything that goes with it. why shouldn't someone who works in McDonalds not want to know about their world? Education is so much more than learning to read write and add up sums. 

Education should never be difficult to get if you want it, that's elitest and condescending. Education is a journey, a voyage of discovery, it is for everyone.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Are you so sure they do? a nation of people who don't actually know where their soldiers are fighting and dying doesn't seem to be awfully well educated/smart to my mind!



 that was my point, IMO the US has a small superbly educated class that ranks above almost all nations but the general population that lags behind.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Still not convinced they have the most educated lol.

What an education should be....

a wide knowledge of history including world and ancient history.

a wide knowledge of the philosophies and religions of the world, should be able to discuss rationally said differences.

a wide knowledge of the world's literature ancient and modern, to be able to discuss said literature.

a wide knowledge of the worlds art including classical and modern, including architecture.

to be widely read, to read fiction, non fiction and poetry, again modern and classical.

a wide knowledge of the natural world and the natural sciences.

to be knowledgable about the modern world, it's politics and it's issues

to have a good knowledge of geography, travel and the world's peoples.

wide knowledge of the sciences is optional but one should know at least what they are.

to be able to debate, to speak at least one foreign language, to be open to learning.


There's more but that's an education. It's not training for a job or career, it's not even about intelligence, it's about broadening the mind, stretching it, learning as much as you can, everyone should be taught to read and write and put on the path to education, they don't have to take it but it should be there for them.

You should know your Kant from your Descartes, your Athenian from your Roman, you should know about the great writers of the world, the great poets. You should be able to be discerning in what you read, to be able to separate the dross from the pearls. This is education. What most get is job training.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> What an education should be....



Your opinion.  Not mine.  Or am I required to share your opinion of what an education _"should be?"_



> There's more but that's an education. It's not training for a job or career, it's not even about intelligence, it's about broadening the mind, stretching it, learning as much as you can, everyone should be taught to read and write and put on the path to education, they don't have to take it but it should be there for them.


In the USA, it is _'there for them'._  Anyone who wants to obtain an education may do so.  They do have to be admitted.  They do have to find a way to pay for it.  But there is nothing stopping them from educating themselves.  In what way is education _'not there for them'_ now?



> You should know your Kant from your Descartes, your Athenian from your Roman, you should know about the great writers of the world, the great poets. You should be able to be discerning in what you read, to be able to separate the dross from the pearls. This is education.


Read _"Jude, the Obscure,"_ by Thomas Hardy for an explanation of why stonecutters neither need nor are necessarily enriched by an education in the classics as well as a scathing opinion of the effete snobs and elitists who feel that 'education' is about thinking lofty thoughts and not learning how to bend electrons or track peptides or enhance business opportunities.

I know Kant from Schopenhauer, and I think your analysis is rubbish.  Poor American education, no doubt.



> What most get is job training.


And that is what most both want and need in order to have a normal, happy, satisfying, and productive life.  Yay, job training.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your opinion. Not mine. Or am I required to share your opinion of what an education _"should be?"_
> 
> In the USA, it is _'there for them'._ Anyone who wants to obtain an education may do so. They do have to be admitted. They do have to find a way to pay for it. But there is nothing stopping them from educating themselves. In what way is education _'not there for them'_ now?
> 
> ...


 

I didn't say job training wasn't important, you can be well trained and well educated but unlike you I don't look down on and write off those who work in sewers, or dig ditches. That's frightfully snobby coming from a country that prides itself on being egalitarian. One would have thought that sentiment was expressed by an 'old worlder'! I would argue that a sewer worker is more important than someone who can bend electrons. 

Lofty thoughts? Not at all. Independant thoughts, the ability to think for oneself and not follow the herd. To be able to work out problems for oneself and not go about whinging.

Thomas Hardy was the son of a 'stone cutter' who was also somewhat of a bitter man, rejection and falling out with his wife over his work then her death made him also quite an unhappy one so he was inclined to be vitriolic about those that rejected his work. he also lived in different times from us, when the working man was supposed to 'know his place', under the heel of his 'better's.
 I actually know a stone cutter or mason as he should be called, works at York Minster, a very well educated man as well as being very skilful in his job.
To be honest saying my argument is 'rubbish' is amusing. Can't you come up with something better than 'rubbish'? 

How can you have a normal, happy, productive life if one doesn't think? What is life for if not to explore?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say job training wasn't important, you can be well trained and well educated but unlike you I don't look down on and write off those who work in sewers, or dig ditches. That's frightfully snobby coming from a country that prides itself on being egalitarian. One would have thought that sentiment was expressed by an 'old worlder'! I would argue that a sewer worker is more important than someone who can bend electrons.



Who said I look down on them?  They're terribly important; society cannot function without them.

I said that a) most workers neither need nor want higher education, b) it is available for them if they do, c) it should be somewhat difficult to obtain so that only those truly motivated to get an education do so, d) the world needs many poor people, the poor being the basis of the economic pyramid and e) there is some correlation between education level and work performed.

Nowhere did I say I looked down on the poor, or the working class, or even the uneducated.



> Lofty thoughts? Not at all. Independant thoughts, the ability to think for oneself and not follow the herd. To be able to work out problems for oneself and not go about whinging.


No one needs to be able to read Greek in order to not whine about one's lot in life.  And 'following the herd' is actually how there happens to be a herd in the first place.  If most don't follow, then there is no herd.



> Thomas Hardy was the son of a 'stone cutter' who was also somewhat of a bitter man, rejection and falling out with his wife over his work then her death made him also quite an unhappy one so he was inclined to be vitriolic about those that rejected his work. he also lived in different times from us, when the working man was supposed to 'know his place', under the heel of his 'better's.


Then you missed one of the major themes of the novel.



> I actually know a stone cutter or mason as he should be called, works at York Minster, a very well educated man as well as being very skilful in his job.


I would not deny that very intelligent people can be found in jobs that do not require great intellect, higher education, or even deep thought.  If they happen to have those attributes, that's good for them.  Presuming they want a higher education, I would encourage them to get one; please show where I have said otherwise.



> To be honest saying my argument is 'rubbish' is amusing. Can't you come up with something better than 'rubbish'?


Can't you come up with actual argument instead of taking issue with my vocabulary or choice of words?  Let me resort to the vernacular, then.  I think your argument is crap.  I've outlined why.



> How can you have a normal, happy, productive life if one doesn't think?


And yet most of the planet doesn't, and presumably has a happy life.  Your mistake is that you believe your level of intellectual curiosity is shared by the rest of the world - it isn't.  That's not a bad thing, necessarily.  Most are quite happy watching whatever is on TV on any given night.  Read the book _"Amusing Ourselves to Death,"_ By Neil Postman for a fine exposition of this theme.

The majority of humanity are booger-eatin' morons.  And they like it that way.  Think?  No.  They feel.  And they like it.  More power to 'em.



> What is life for if not to explore?


Please see my previous reference to aesthetes who have no clue that the rest of the world doesn't sit around thinking deep thoughts when the football game is on.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 8, 2010)

Steady now lads and ladettes, let's not get too excited in countering each others positions.

Ironic in a way and related to this thread as something that education should prepare you for is the ability to debate.  

It is something that is dying out, I think, as I have had a holder of (recent) Masters degrees trying to shout me down in my own house; what he should have been doing is building his case convincingly rather than attempting to prevent me building my counterpoint.

The state of education in general in many places has become terrible, with 'exam passing' targets taking the place of the nurturing of critical thinking.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill and I are only sparring, we aren't fighting! don't spoil our fun!

He'll have to wait for an answer though, I've just sent the other half for fish and chips!


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> LOL....raises an interesting question, is it better to have a generally better educated population or a small extremely educated class.



I think that having a small educated class and bunch of slobbering morons creates non-functioning democracies.  If everyone has a vote and people are too dumb to know how to cast it or for what they even believe in, the system isn't going to work.  The public just becomes a bunch of easily manipulated patsies.  The state of affairs in the US pretty much bears this out.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I think that having a small educated class and bunch of slobbering morons creates non-functioning democracies.  If everyone has a vote and people are too dumb to know how to cast it or for what they even believe in, the system isn't going to work.  The public just becomes a bunch of easily manipulated patsies.  The state of affairs in the US pretty much bears this out.



That's not education.  That's intelligence.  Most people haven't got the sense to pour urine out of a boot with the instructions printed on the bottom.

Democracy is an interesting concept, and our system of representative republic (not true democracy) works - kind of - because it resists idiots by design.  Laws are hard to change and have to pass Constitutional muster, and our system is designed to fight itself through three countervailing systems (legislative, executive, and judicial) that, with the cooperation of a free press and a semi-engaged electorate, can sustain an amazing amount of damage and still soldier on.

However, as the balance of power shifts towards the executive, and people realize - as Tytler supposedly said, "vote themselves largess from the public coffer," the system begins to experience entropy to a degree that may not be sustainable over the long term.



> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only  exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the  public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the  candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy  collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be  followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - ascribed to Alexander Fraser Tytler.



In the long term, our form of government is unstable.  It is, however, more stable than any other form that has been discovered to date, and preserves the independent rights of the citizenry better than any other as well.  Long live the Republic; but it is the judgment of history that it will one day fall.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2010)

Oh, yes, I agree, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on whose for dinner.  

However, we have a system that uses votes and requires information and this demands education.  You can be intelligent, but if your information is flawed or absent, it won't make a difference.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Oh, yes, I agree, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on whose for dinner.
> 
> However, we have a system that uses votes and requires information and this demands education.  You can be intelligent, but if your information is flawed or absent, it won't make a difference.



No system could exist as you describe.  It relies upon a fundamental premise that does not exist - that two people, given access to education, given a high level of intellect, and who both care about the outcome of an election, *would come to a similar conclusion* about which candidate to vote for.  This is a fallacy.  Informed voters are the same as uninformed voters; they are not capable of making the 'correct' choice because there isn't one to make.

This is analogous to the stock market.  Sophisticates and neophytes both get haircuts from time to time; it only differs in terms of who gets what when.  The only winners are those who have access to privileged information or luck on their side.  If it were truly down to skill, there could be no stock market, because people would only choose winners, there would be no losers, and the stock market would go up forever.

It's a common theme - if the electorate only understood the issues, they'd vote my way.  But whether they do or they do not, they will or won't vote your way, and education is no guarantee of how one will vote.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

I would dispute the statement that most workers don't want higher education. Every weekday night in the UK millions are studying at local education authority evening classes and 250,000 'mature' students a year are studying at the Open University, not just for degrees but in subjects such as literature and art history. Unions here through the TUC offer learning through affliated colleges and having union reps who's task is to promote learning among the members. Yes there is section of society that will sit and slob out but there's huge numbers of workers who are busy studying! There is also a college in Oxford that is specifically for people with no qualifiactions or are disadvantaged to enable them to study, it's called Ruskin College and should be of interest to Americans! There's also the Workers Educational Association.

http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_College

http://www.wea.org.uk/aboutus/index.htm

These are the classes offered at our nearest big town, we also have classes in village halls and local schools. If you don't get your name down quickly you miss out as the classes fill up quickly.

http://durham.floodlight.co.uk/durh...dy/darlington/16180339/220706/100/domain.html

The local universities offer part time course as well as evening classes, commerical companies offering distance learning are very popular. 

Thomas Hardy is over rated in my opinion, I find him boring frankly, C P Snow much more my thing.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 8, 2010)

That is a most important and often underestimated point, Bill :tup:.

A classic example of this is the discourses between me and one of my friends at work.  

He is, in my opinion at least, a near genius, with a masterfully analytical mind that holds information seemingly forever (unlike my leaky bucket which loses stuff over time ).

I like to think that I am well read and know quite a bit about a broad range of things (my big claim to fame is having a linguistic IQ of 192  (maths one was only 155, so I'll whisper that bit :lol:}).

So we're both intelligent and well educated ... and yet there are a number of things we disagree on fundamentally when it comes to the matters touched on by politics.  

In my eyes, his big problem (and no laughing, please, my American friends who have discoursed with me here over the years) is that he is too liberal in his thinking.  He cannot see that sometimes your own people and their wants and needs must come first, over and above those of everybody else, no matter how deserving they may be.  

That sort of difference of opinion is little impacted by education or intelligence because it is a value judgement.

It can be argued that better informed people make better calls on value judgements too, which might be true but not in all cases.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I would dispute the statement that most workers don't want higher education. Every weekday night in the UK millions are studying at local education authority evening classes and 250,000 'mature' students a year are studying at the Open University, not just for degrees but in subjects such as literature and art history. Unions here through the TUC offer learning through affliated colleges and having union reps who's task is to promote learning among the members. Yes there is section of society that will sit and slob out but there's huge numbers of workers who are busy studying! There is also a college in Oxford that is specifically for people with no qualifiactions or are disadvantaged to enable them to study, it's called Ruskin College and should be of interest to Americans! There's also the Workers Educational Association.



Then you've already disproved your premise that higher education is not generally available.  Apparently, it is, and for those who want it, there is no lack of places they can go to get it.

And in any case - the popularity of advanced education does not challenge my assertion that 'most' people don't prefer to continue to educate themselves.

On my side, I give you television.  List the number of educational shows versus the number of shows that depict violence or sex or both; tell me which is more popular.  According to Neilson, the average American spends 8 hours and 15 minutes watching television every 24 hours.  It's a full-time job.

How many schools versus how many bars and pubs?

85% of Americans have completed high school - 27% have a four-year college degree.  A very small percentage possess post-graduate degrees.

People get the education they want.  Most don't want any more than they have.



> Thomas Hardy is over rated in my opinion, I find him boring frankly, C P Snow much more my thing.



I have not read C.P. Snow.  I never said preferred Hardy, I only cited his novel as an example of the folly of the notion that everyone should be universally educated in the classic liberal sense.  Frankly, I prefer Kinky Friedman.  The man can turn a phrase.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Now I'm confused, it was never my premise that higher education wasn't generally available, in fact I haven't mentioned anything about education being either available or unavailable. Where did you get that idea? I did expound on my opinion of what education is, an idea shared by many btw, but nowhere did I say education was unavailable widely.


Television, the BBC has 'a mission to educate' and we have a high propartion of programmes which do and are popular. The other channels also have programmes that amuse and educate. Programmes such as Coast, Time Team, Spring and Autumn Watch, Life on Earth, we have a high proportion of documentaries about science, natural history, history, medicine, geography etc all very popular. 

I know you didn't say you preferred Hardy, I was merely saying I find him boring.

I'm sure you know your countrymen very well however you don't know mine as well so generalisations about mankind based on American behaviour just doesn't wash I'm afraid.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No system could exist as you describe.  It relies upon a fundamental premise that does not exist - that two people, given access to education, given a high level of intellect, and who both care about the outcome of an election, *would come to a similar conclusion* about which candidate to vote for.  This is a fallacy.  Informed voters are the same as uninformed voters; they are not capable of making the 'correct' choice because there isn't one to make.
> 
> This is analogous to the stock market.  Sophisticates and neophytes both get haircuts from time to time; it only differs in terms of who gets what when.  The only winners are those who have access to privileged information or luck on their side.  If it were truly down to skill, there could be no stock market, because people would only choose winners, there would be no losers, and the stock market would go up forever.
> 
> It's a common theme - if the electorate only understood the issues, they'd vote my way.  But whether they do or they do not, they will or won't vote your way, and education is no guarantee of how one will vote.



I agree with you, but that isn't what I'm trying to say.  This discussion probes one of the fundamental discussions regarding the nature of education.  Does it simply pour knowledge into the brain or does it exercise the mind and develop the individual?  The latter is essential for democracy, the former is brainwashing, in my opinion.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I agree with you, but that isn't what I'm trying to say. *This discussion probes one of the fundamental discussions regarding the nature of education. Does it simply pour knowledge into the brain or does it exercise the mind and develop the individual? The latter is essential for democracy, the former is brainwashing, in my opinion.[/*quote]
> 
> Ah you grasped my point!
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I agree with you, but that isn't what I'm trying to say.  This discussion probes one of the fundamental discussions regarding the nature of education.  Does it simply pour knowledge into the brain or does it exercise the mind and develop the individual?  The latter is essential for democracy, the former is brainwashing, in my opinion.



The difference between the two is down to the individual.  Everything is poison, it's merely a question of dosage.

When people propose to filter or change the presentation of information in order to fit their own concept of what education is versus what brainwashing is, one merely accepts their brainwashing versus the previous version.  The new boss is the same as the old boss.

Personally, I'm an autodidact.  I don't need my information presented in any particular format or manner; I'll do the thinking, thank you very much.  I develop myself; the very notion that someone would 'develop' me by a specialized system of education makes me slightly queasy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The purpose of education is to exercise the mind, to broaden it, to learn from history so as not to repeat mistakes, to learn from wise people and to ultimately be enlighten ones self.



No it isn't.  That's a description of education for buttinskis who feel they know better than others what they should be learning.



> The thing is, it's the most enormous fun to be curious and constantly searching for knowledge.


For you, clearly.  For me, yes as well.  For most, bowling and hot wings suffice for _'the most fun'_.  Leave them alone; let them seek their education as they see fit.



> It is necessary for democracy


Not only is it not necessary, it's not particularly desirable.



> but it also keep your mind alive, keeps it sharp and makes you an interesting person to talk to!


And for those who simply don't wish to sit at that immaculate table (which, I maintain, is the majority)?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No it isn't. That's a description of education for buttinskis who feel they know better than others what they should be learning.
> 
> For you, clearly. For me, yes as well. For most, bowling and hot wings suffice for _'the most fun'_. Leave them alone; let them seek their education as they see fit.
> 
> ...


 
In your neck of the woods perhaps, the figures here show that education for the masses is popular and widely taken up. For someone who thinks his country is the best in the world you have a very poor opinion of your fellow countrymen, dear me, I think better of them than you do!


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> In your neck of the woods perhaps, the figures here show that education for the masses is popular and widely taken up. For someone who thinks his country is the best in the world you have a very poor opinion of your fellow countrymen, dear me, I think better of them than you do!



  LOL, on one hand they the best of the best of the best....then they are beer swilling droogs .....


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Personally, I'm an autodidact.  I don't need my information presented in any particular format or manner; I'll do the thinking, thank you very much.  I develop myself; the very notion that someone would 'develop' me by a specialized system of education makes me slightly queasy.



++ Good.  LOL!

The root word of education actually means "to draw out."  There's nothing about shaping or developing anything.  

Here's a different thought, one thing that might explain the discrepancy in what we see.  The US nominally values freedom and, since we live in a diverse society, people can choose how much education they want.  As much or as little.  In countries with strong socialistic tendencies, you have less choice and are forced to learn standardized material.  The US tried to do this with NCLB, but I think the general culture of individualism and freedom is dooming this effort to failure.  There is too much we have to change about our society in order for that to work.


----------

