The strength of an economy rarely depends on the education or knowledge of the masses.
I specifically disagree, on the basis of trans-national comparisons. The newly independent former colonies that became independent during my childhood and the formerly backward surviving countries after World War II that became developed countries during my lifetime followed various development paths. All over the world, in a lot of pairings of countries with different cultural backgrounds and differing supplies of natural resources, by far the most successful national development strategy was broad education for the masses. Countries that invested education spending in well designed K-12 education for the whole national population had much higher sustained levels of economic growth (and much more success in democratization) than countries that invested equal spending per capita in subsidized national university education for a tiny elite minority. This contrast in national policies is one of the biggest differences between Africa (which had several countries as rich as any east Asian country other than Japan at the time of independence) and east Asia (which has left most parts of Africa far behind in economic growth and democratization since the early 1960s). You really should look up more facts about the rest of the world before giving general policy advice. A good source of information on this subject, even though it is now somewhat old, is the book How the Other Half Dies,
a free download of a book published in the 1970s, when these trends were becoming apparent.
"Japanese and Dutch adults who were ages 25 to 34 and only completed high school easily outperformed Italian or Spanish university graduates of the same age."
This observation from the article is not a surprise.
Comments
The strength of an economy rarely depends on the education or knowledge of the masses.
I specifically disagree, on the basis of trans-national comparisons. The newly independent former colonies that became independent during my childhood and the formerly backward surviving countries after World War II that became developed countries during my lifetime followed various development paths. All over the world, in a lot of pairings of countries with different cultural backgrounds and differing supplies of natural resources, by far the most successful national development strategy was broad education for the masses. Countries that invested education spending in well designed K-12 education for the whole national population had much higher sustained levels of economic growth (and much more success in democratization) than countries that invested equal spending per capita in subsidized national university education for a tiny elite minority. This contrast in national policies is one of the biggest differences between Africa (which had several countries as rich as any east Asian country other than Japan at the time of independence) and east Asia (which has left most parts of Africa far behind in economic growth and democratization since the early 1960s). You really should look up more facts about the rest of the world before giving general policy advice. A good source of information on this subject, even though it is now somewhat old, is the book How the Other Half Dies,
http://www.tni.org/tnibook/how-other-half-dies-0
a free download of a book published in the 1970s, when these trends were becoming apparent.
"Japanese and Dutch adults who were ages 25 to 34 and only completed high school easily outperformed Italian or Spanish university graduates of the same age."
This observation from the article is not a surprise.