From: "Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I don't believe that you'll have any trouble at all finding data to
> contradict your claim. Simply go to Google and type in:
>
> "SAT scores 1963"
>
> (without the quotes). 1963 was the high point for SAT scores in the United
There was a real decline in SAT scores from the mid-1960s through the late-1970s,
but there was not a major decline during the same period for broader measures, such
as the PSAT, the Iowa basic skills tests, and the NAEP. Furthermore, math scores
have rebounded strongly since 1980 so that they are essentially the same as 40 years
ago. (In some ways higher--the proportion of 17-year olds who score over 700 on the
math SAT is greater than it was 40 years ago.)
You originally said "and if anything, US standards have dropped especially
precipitously in the last decade." What's the evidence for that? Scores have been
rising since 1980.
> Ken also writes:
>
> > So people in call centers and textile mills need to know about evolution?
> > Please! It's the jobs at the _low end_ that the U.S. is losing, not the
> > jobs at the high end.
>
> I'm unsure how to respond to this. It seems as if you suggest that certain
> people are destined to dead-end jobs with no future, but it is precisely
> educational opportunity that allows people to escape such a poverty of options. To
> not understand evolutionary biology is only facet of a poorly educated
> population, but it is nonetheless a major contributing factor determining who
works in
> the textile mills and who doesn't.
>
_Of course_ I think that not everybody is college material. Don't you? The U.S.
already has the highest percentage of people going to college of any country. Even
of those who do go to college, many end up in jobs that don't really require a
college education. It's not clear that they wouldn't have been better off working
instead of going to college.
But the gist of Kristof's column is crap! We have people in India (a country with
only 60% literacy!!!!!!) telling us to "bolster our second-rate education system."
Of course India does not participate in TIMSS; if it did, it would come out about
the level of Turkey or Iran. He compares an "upper middle-class child in Bangalore"
to the average kid in the U.S. Well, it's nice that they have an educated elite in
their most advanced city. So do we. If we compare an "upper middle-class child"
in, say, Chapel Hill, they come out way ahead of the average kid in the U.S., too.
My daughter took algebra in the seventh grade, too.
This is beside the point. The outsourcing to India is done not because the Indians
are better educated, but because they work cheaper. Most of the jobs are low-level
clerical jobs, like phone answering. Even more skilled jobs (whose outsourcing is
greatly exaggerated, IMHO) are outsourced to India not because the Indians are more
productive per hour of labor (they're not), but because they work cheaper.
It MAY be that there will be a significant drop in demand in the U.S. for certain
skilled professions because new technologies allow economical off-shore outsourcing,
just as computers clearly reduced the demand for clerical work over the last few
decades. But let's be clear, it's because new technology made it feasible to
outsource to low-wage countries with adequate education, not because India or the
Philippines suddenly overtook the U.S. in education.
Even if demand for some professions decline, education (and skill, more generally)
will continue to be an advantage. BUT, education is not magic. There will always
be people who cannot benefit from a college education and the economic benefits of a
college education that is not specific to your profession are unclear, at best.
Incidentally, most studies of computer programmer productivity have found no
correlation with general education. At least one
(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/170791.170867) found an adverse impact.
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
