Strange that we say our public education system is in need of desperate help, yet our colleges and universities are the best in the world.
[EDIT]
To clarify, the sound bites I hear from politicians and university administrators are that our colleges and universities are the best in the world.
Personally, I do not agree. I could have written that better.
University reputations are built more around research than undergraduate or graduate education. The notion that the USA has the most reputable universities says more about the quality of research than education.
It's ridiculously overpriced, but the value added is very good.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
On the basis of international comparisons, including comparisons with a country outside the United States I have lived in for two three-year stays, I don't think K-12 schooling in the United States offers good value added or good value for the price paid by taxpayers.
Many of the comparisons of United States population subgroups to populations of other countries ignore the serious issue of underperformance of United States schools in serving students from the most advantaged subgroups. The least advantaged subgroups of United States students can't be used as an excuse for lousy performance of the whole national non-system when that non-system also underperforms for the children of college graduates and for children of "white" families and children in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
This makes no sense.
As for your links, they provide the same data my links provide, but with less granularity. Why do you feel it is proper to ignore the ethnicity data? Simply because this gives you a conclusion you want?
Saying something is Overpriced (especially rediculously so) implies that it likely does not add enough value for the cost charged. Therefore, the more true your first statement is, the less likely your second statement is true.
Only the elite ones, many of the community colleges are pretty bad. And at all levels they end up putting many freshmen through remedial courses to catch them up to where they should be.
There are over two thousand four year colleges in the US. Saying we have (random number) 80 of the top 200 colleges in the world doesn't mean the system as a whole is producing adequate results.
Performance metrics should always be stated/calculated to reflect efficiency.
Comments
Exactly.
Strange that we say our public education system is in need of desperate help, yet our colleges and universities are the best in the world.
[EDIT] To clarify, the sound bites I hear from politicians and university administrators are that our colleges and universities are the best in the world.
Personally, I do not agree. I could have written that better.
Best in terms of what?
University reputations are built more around research than undergraduate or graduate education. The notion that the USA has the most reputable universities says more about the quality of research than education.
People who say our k-12 education system is in need of desperate help are unaware of the facts.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-abou...
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-...
It's ridiculously overpriced, but the value added is very good.
It's ridiculously overpriced, but the value added is very good.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
On the basis of international comparisons, including comparisons with a country outside the United States I have lived in for two three-year stays, I don't think K-12 schooling in the United States offers good value added or good value for the price paid by taxpayers.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
After edit:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-19_Hanushe...
Many of the comparisons of United States population subgroups to populations of other countries ignore the serious issue of underperformance of United States schools in serving students from the most advantaged subgroups. The least advantaged subgroups of United States students can't be used as an excuse for lousy performance of the whole national non-system when that non-system also underperforms for the children of college graduates and for children of "white" families and children in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
This makes no sense.
As for your links, they provide the same data my links provide, but with less granularity. Why do you feel it is proper to ignore the ethnicity data? Simply because this gives you a conclusion you want?
Saying something is Overpriced (especially rediculously so) implies that it likely does not add enough value for the cost charged. Therefore, the more true your first statement is, the less likely your second statement is true.
You are confusing the term "value added" with "value for money" (or "a good value").
Value added = quality of students after education - quality of students before education.
The amount of money put in does not affect this.
Value for money = value added / money spent.
Very interesting, thanks.
Only the elite ones, many of the community colleges are pretty bad. And at all levels they end up putting many freshmen through remedial courses to catch them up to where they should be.
There are over two thousand four year colleges in the US. Saying we have (random number) 80 of the top 200 colleges in the world doesn't mean the system as a whole is producing adequate results.
Performance metrics should always be stated/calculated to reflect efficiency.