Article: How Does Your Child's School Rank vs. Other Nations

[chrizow]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ld/266057/

Very interesting article and interactive map discussing how school districts nationwide stack up against our peer countries. Even wealthy, "good" suburban districts are only in the 70th percentile, to say nothing of struggling urban districts.

[earthling]

Can't find a source but if I recall around 50% of high school students in affluent areas of Asian countries go into a science/tech/math/bio/med field. In the 1980s US, about 12-15% did. In recent years, it's around 3%. And we wonder why we have to import tech/med employees. I think % is going back up but still very small compared to other affluent countries.

Not suggesting people should be in those fields to be productive, but the way the US school system is structured and with our TV culture that glorifies idiocy, not many are interested.

[KCtonic]

Interesting. Park Hill - one of the top districts in MO in terms of performance comes in better than 59% in math and 68% in reading fwiw. The data is a bit dated which makes it even tougher to use - comparison to state is from 2004-2007, comparison to intl is 2004-2009

It's always extremely dangerous to look at these sorts of results without understanding all of the facts. In many (most) developed countries, schools are segregated into "college-bound" versus "get a job now-bound". Further such public schools have very different requirements as to keeping troubled students, learning disabled (not the right term) and other similar student "classes" in the school districts. Are these important differences taken into account in these comparisons?

For instance Germany has several "tracks" of public education. Some end at grade 9!

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

I'm certainly not saying there isn't room for improvement, but our education system (in many districts) is pretty good imo.

[KCMax]

Can't find a source but if I recall around 50% of high school students in affluent areas of Asian countries go into a science/tech/math/bio/med field. In the 1980s US, about 12-15% did. In recent years, it's around 3%. And we wonder why we have to import tech/med employees. I think % is going back up but still very small compared to other affluent countries.

Not suggesting people should be in those fields to be productive, but the way the US school system is structured and with our TV culture that glorifies idiocy, not many are interested.

Could it also be that the financial incentive is not there? I rather doubt that those that glorify idiocy on TV would have made very good engineers or scientists to begin with. So let's talk about the best and the brightest in the US. Where do they go? They become lawyers, accountants and *shudder* hedge fund managers. Because that's where the money is.

Companies need scientists and engineers and technicians, but they aren't willing to pay for it, they want the general public to pay for the training, and they want to import cheaper engineers from India and China. If companies think its so hard to find good American engineers then double the salary they're willing to pay, and watch students sign up. Otherwise, why would a smart kid in this country become an engineer or scientist? Its a lot harder than being a hedge fund manager or lawyer, and it doesn't pay nearly as well.

[earthling]

Good point for some science/math jobs but IT and medical/biotech jobs pay pretty well and there is a lot more opportunity. I know a couple of you are lawyers but even many lawyers say we have too many, scrounging for business on TV ads, creating new ways to sue people/businesses, including patent trolling.

[Highlander]

Companies need scientists and engineers and technicians, but they aren't willing to pay for it, they want the general public to pay for the training, and they want to import cheaper engineers from India and China. If companies think its so hard to find good American engineers then double the salary they're willing to pay, and watch students sign up. Otherwise, why would a smart kid in this country become an engineer or scientist? Its a lot harder than being a hedge fund manager or lawyer, and it doesn't pay nearly as well.

What are you basing this on? Starting salaries for geologists (with a MS or Phd) in the oil industry, for example, can be upwards of $100,000. Petroleum Engineers make a bit more with a masters. The industry is incredibly diverse (lots of Indians, Chinese and Arabs) but most entry level in the US still come out of US schools. Competition for talent has really driven up the salaries. I suspect researchers for the pharmeceutical industry get paid as well or nearly as well.

[KCMax]

Companies need scientists and engineers and technicians, but they aren't willing to pay for it, they want the general public to pay for the training, and they want to import cheaper engineers from India and China. If companies think its so hard to find good American engineers then double the salary they're willing to pay, and watch students sign up. Otherwise, why would a smart kid in this country become an engineer or scientist? Its a lot harder than being a hedge fund manager or lawyer, and it doesn't pay nearly as well.

What are you basing this on? Starting salaries for geologists (with a MS or Phd) in the oil industry, for example, can be upwards of $100,000. Petroleum Engineers make a bit more with a masters. The industry is incredibly diverse (lots of Indians, Chinese and Arabs) but most entry level in the US still come out of US schools. Competition for talent has really driven up the salaries. I suspect researchers for the pharmeceutical industry get paid as well or nearly as well.

And lawyers and hedge fund managers can make far more than that for a much easier job. I do imagine salaries for scientists and engineers have gone up a bit, and there is likely a bit of a lag as students catch up to meet that demand, but the fact is you can make millions in Wall Street or in the courtroom without having to take nearly as difficult as courses.