Kevin Drum looks at the latest story about American students lagging the world in science test scores, and notes that this has been going on at least since he was in school. This leads him to wonder whether it's really as bad as all that:
I still wonder about this. If American kids are getting mediocre educations, and if they've been getting these mediocre educations for several decades now, shouldn't this have long since shown up in the business world, the tech world, and the financial world? And yet, it hasn't. So what's the deal? Makes me wonder if maybe American kids don't actually suck all that bad after all.
Of course, the problem pre-dates even a geezer like Kevin-- the source that I have close to hand for this is Bill Bryson's 1994 book Made in America, which notes that
What is almost always overlooked in these debates is that people have been complaining about declining educational standards for about as long as there have been schools to complain about. "Bad spelling, incorrectness as well as inelegance of expression in writing, ignorance of the simplest rules of punctuation, and almost entire want of familiarity with English literature, are far from rare among young men of eighteen otherwise well prepared for college," lamented the president of Harvard in 1871. A colleague of his despaired of "the tedious mediocrity" of compositions among students and the want of "fresh thought." Princeton University was so alarmed at the quality of its undergraduates that in the 1870s it established a remedial writing clinic.
He also mentions a study (but annoyingly does not provide a cite-- it's probably this one from 1987) that questions whether there has really been a decline in literacy over the decades. He also notes the same lack of economic collapse cited by Kevin.
Now, Bryson's sources are talking about reading, where the story cited by Kevin concerned a science test, but I wouldn't really expect the findings to be all that much different for science tests. It'd be harder to do the comparison, as there have been significant advancements in science since 1944, and the content taught these days would be rather different than what might've been tested back then.
It's possible, of course, that both conclusions can be right-- it might be true that there was no significant decline for the older studies to find, but that educational standards really have cratered in the last twenty years or so. I'm not up on the educational literature, but there's no shortage of anecdotal evidence in that direction-- ask any college professor nearing retirement. But then again, there was probably plenty of anecdotal evidence of an educational collapse in 1871, too...
Would I like for our entering students to be better prepared? Absolutely. I'm consistently baffled and distressed at their struggles with algebra (if I had a dollar for every time I've seen 1/(A+B) rewritten as 1/A + 1/B, I'd have enough for dinner at a very nice restaurant), and don't get me started about the quality of student writing on lab reports. But do I really think that this is an indication that our educational system is in free fall? Not when I think back on the contributions some of my classmates made to a couple of group projects, back in my own college days.
This is not to say that there aren't serious problems with our educational system, particularly having to do with the vast funding discrepancies between school districts in different parts of the country. And, as noted in previous posts, there are huge racial gaps in educational performance (which are probably inextricably bound up in the economic issues). And, of course, there are persistent attempts to further wreck the system, either by requiring the teaching of patent nonsense, or through "reform" proposals that are misguided at best.
But we've been bumbling along with this system for a century or so, and civilization hasn't come to an end yet. I doubt this latest round of low test scores will be the death knell, either.
- Log in to post comments
I generally agree with claims that the US primary and secondary education system is weak; it matches my own impressions and those of other immigrants. But the US manages to compensate by doing very well in other areas: a first-rate university system, remarkably open access to the courts, probably the premier financial system in the world, an entrepreneurial culture, and openness to ambitious immigrants. In the end, having a kick-ass school system isn't that crucial.
For what it's worth, I'm not really expecting things to change either. The system is just too big, and too entrenched. The people who are really pissed off find ways around it -- private schools, charter schools, home school, whatever -- leaving a mediocre system to serve the undemanding mass. And barring some Sputnik-like stressor, I expect that will continue.
Beyond the basics of math, reading and writing the school system doesn't provide anything of value to the business and financial world. The same can be said for the technical world, where those who go on to succeed are often mostly self taught until they reach college age.
None of this will change until there is a cultural change that respects academic achievement more than sports.
What has kept the US on top is the reputation of the top tier of your colleges which attract the top students from around the world, combined with the funding for science that has been available that allows those students to stay after they graduate as well as enticing scientists from the world to immigrate. In other words, you succeed despite your schools by importing the necessary talent.
The big question is whether this lead will change given the recent changes that make the US less attractive to the academically gifted (treating visitors as criminals by fingerprinting them, denying funding to new areas of research based on religious beliefs, etc.).
It's kind of hard to determine whether there has been any objective fall in achievement over the past century.
First of all, at the turn of the 20th century only 11% of kids were going to high school. The other 89% were done with an 8th grade education. We are educating more people for longer.
Second, the testing process is FAR more complex than most people understand. Comparing scores across multiple years of similar but not identical tests is fraught with errors, and comparing scores on different tests is asking for trouble. For example the SAT is often cited as falling over the past 30 years, but the test of today bears little resemblance to the one I took in 1982. Further, the demographics of the students TAKING the tests has changed drastically. Yes, overall this is a good thing; more minority and low income kids are going to college (or at least trying). But that means that it is no longer just the top percentages taking the test, but the middle percentages as well. The average is bound to drop.
Third, comparisons to other countries are also fraught with problems. Our system does not teach the same materials at the same grades as other countries. Thus while one country may start calculus in 11th grade, we generally don't start until 12th. If 11th graders are tested, of course our students will do poorly.
There are massive areas for improvement in our system; why are we a year behind in math skills, for example? But there are more political than educative reasons behind the regular educational "chicken little" reports.
I can't speak to nonchemistry disciplines, but in chemistry the majority of grad students at my grad school (caltech) were american born or spent the vast majority of their education in US schools. And these schools weren't concentrated in any particular region of the country either; I had classmates from Bowling Green and Furman. So I'm kinda dubious of the "horrible american school system" theory. maybe it's not great. maybe also having really advanced 6th graders doesn't really translate into anything.
Also, don't underestimate the effect of the "No Child Left Behind" policies of testing only for Reading and Math. This has led to the complete evisceration of science programs in secondary schools nationwide, as they have all shifted resources away from science to bolster only those areas being tested. I am personally aware of at least 3 large-scale science enrichment programs that despite showing astounding effects, all had their funding redirected to reading and math, and collapsed as a result.
What has kept the US on top is the reputation of the top tier of your colleges which attract the top students from around the world, combined with the funding for science that has been available that allows those students to stay after they graduate as well as enticing scientists from the world to immigrate. In other words, you succeed despite your schools by importing the necessary talent.
I don't buy this.
We do "import" some students, and they tend to be good, but it's not like elite colleges and universities are completely dominated by foreign students. Like Brian, the majority of the students I had classes with in grad school were American-born.
The proportion of foreign-born students in grad school in the sciences is certainly higher than in other fields, or society in general, but even at the high point of foreign student enrollment (according to the AIP), they were never more than 60% of the physics graduate students, and that was during the trough in domestic enrollments that coincided with the dot-com boom.
We do "import" some students, and they tend to be good, but it's not like elite colleges and universities are completely dominated by foreign students. Like Brian, the majority of the students I had classes with in grad school were American-born
It is my impression that most US programs apply different standards to foreign and domestic students. I have definitely seen language in recruiting documents that talked in round-about ways of "maintaining a balance" between foreign and domestic students. That was a pretty big hint. Any of the profs who have served on admissions committees want to comment?
My favorite quote to address the anecdotal evidence you mention comes from the Iliad. In Book 1, Nestor says
"You are both younger men than I.
And I've been colleague of better men than you, ...
men whose like I have not seen again,
and never will
...
No man alive on earth could now fight them."
This is said to Achilles, Odysseus, Agamemnon, and the whole gang of Greek heroes. The elderly have been perceiving declining standards all around them since the dawn of literature.
I agree with at least part of every comment here so far. My unifying yet paradoxical notion is that American education is bimodal: the best is unsurpassed anywhere in the world; the mean and median are third-world.
# 1 | Johan Larson: "the US manages to compensate by doing very well in other areas" Yes!
"barring some Sputnik-like stressor" -- My final grade in "Public Speaking for Teachers" was my speech on EXACTLY that point. It earned me a perfect score. To the older generation, Sputnik was like Pearl Harbor. To the younger generations, it was like 9/11 -- except that we did the RIGHT things after Sputnik.
# 2 | aa |
"Beyond the basics of math, reading and writing the school system doesn't provide anything of value to the business and financial world." Other than indoctrination to be good worker-bees and consumers, yes.
The U.S. corporate world spends as much on remedial education as does the public school system. I know, having been that remedial teacher at Boeing, Rockwell, EarthLink and other firms. If the "the business and financial world" is the consumer of US education, then US education is bankrupt.
"top tier of your colleges" yes, per my unifying paradox.
"make the US less attractive to the academically gifted" -- that applies both internally and externally.
# 3 | Rebecca |
"at the turn of the 20th century only 11% of kids were going to high school."
There was another phase transition after World War II, thanks in part to the great GI Bill. Suddenly, a bachelor's degree became commonplace, supplanting what a high school diploma used to mean. hence the M.S. increased and became the minimal level for many professionals. More recently, the M.S. got more common, and the PhD increased in frequency.
Monthly Labor Review, Nov.2007, p.103:
"The doctoral degree category [those jobs typically requiring PhD] is expected to increase the fastest of all the education and training categories over the 2006-16 period, growing at a 22-percent rate. Most of this change will be due to the fast-growing occupation of post-secondary teachers. Despite the fast growth, jobs generated needing a doctoral degree for qualification will still account for just 1.5 percent of total jobs in 2016."
"the testing process is FAR more complex than most people understand." -- especially those who believe in No Child Left Behind.
"comparisons to other countries are also fraught with problems" -- correct. But the golbal competitiveness issue, patents, Nobel prizes, and more are affected by this problematic comparison.
# 4 | brian ledford |
Mostly true, but I was chatting with Caltech undergraduates yesterday afternoon. Anyone who got into Caltech was an elite student, often from an elite high school (cf. the U.S. News & World report listing recently of the alleged Top 100 US High Schools). This is massively disconnected from what happens in average or poor high schools.
# 5 | Phillip Alvelda |
"No Child Left Behind" policies of testing only for Reading and Math. -- also eviscerates art, music, literature, and more.
# 6 | Chad Orzel |
There was a kind of academic recession, in employment for new PhDs, and caused a boom in Postdocs coincident with a shortage of faculty openings, which passed a few years ago. For the next decade or more, the majority of faculty positions opening for PhDs will be from replacement of retiring babyboomers, rather than economic growth.
# 7 | Johan Larson |
"most US programs apply different standards to foreign and domestic students" -- I feel this is so. I saw a huge change when the USSR imploded, and a flood of smart scientists and mathematicians, from student through professorial levels, came to the USA. A fomer Soviet professor would quite reasonably prefer to be paid even grad student stipends rather thasn cab driving fares and tips.
Chad, thank you for raising and moderating this important issue.
JVP, replying to Brian: "I was chatting with Caltech undergraduates yesterday afternoon. Anyone who got into Caltech was an elite student, often from an elite high school"
Undergrad and grad are two different levels. Yes, undergrads at Caltech (or MIT, Stanford, or the Ivies) are from the elite, and come disproportionately from certain high schools. Quality of public school education has been a strong function of where you live for a long time (it was true when I was growing up), and I won't venture to say without seeing the results of appropriate studies whether that trend is getting better or worse.
Brian was talking about grad school classmates, several of whom came from second- and third-tier US universities. I doubt that those classmates, in particular, went to elite high schools: can you imagine someone going from a prep school like Phillips Andover to a university like Bowling Green having the confidence to put things together and do grad school at Caltech? He'd be considered a failure because he ended up at Bowling Green.
I don't doubt that the foreign-born grad students in this country are, on average, better prepared than their American classmates. The worldwide pool is simply that much deeper, and it includes cultures (Chinese, Indian, East European, etc.) which value academic achievement more highly than American culture does. Grad schools get to pick the best of the foreign applicants. Then the students who get in have to get visas, implying that embassy officials have a chance to second-guess the admissions committees. That gives the grad schools even more incentive to ensure that they are taking the best of the best.
# 10 | Eric Lund
Thank you for the clarification. "Undergrad and grad are two different levels."
At Caltech, it is normal for undergrads to also be taking some graduate courses, and doing as well as the grad students.
In yesterday's conversation, one undergrad explained how and why he was taking a graduate Quantum Field Theory course. He talked about how Tensors have been re-explained since the Misner, Thorne, Wheeler "Gravitation" textbook that I'd used in pre-print. I reflected on how those 3 authors are irreplaceable. Nobody at Caltech lectures as well as Feynman did, except maybe Thorne. The undergrad said nice things about Sean Carroll as a lecturer.
"Oh, yes," I said, "I read him all the time in Cosmic Variance, and on the arXiv."
He looked at me strangely.
"Geezers blog?
It is my impression that most US programs apply different standards to foreign and domestic students. I have definitely seen language in recruiting documents that talked in round-about ways of "maintaining a balance" between foreign and domestic students. That was a pretty big hint. Any of the profs who have served on admissions committees want to comment?
I have done a little bit of work with physics grad admissions at MIT, so can I only speak to procedures there. Nationality plays (almost) zero role in the admissions process; balance tends to be achieved by the fact that the applicants are themselves already a rather balanced bunch. I don't know the exact fraction of domestic versus international students for the whole department; for astrophysics (my division of the department) the ratio is roughly 2 domestic to 1 foreign. This ratio of students who have been admitted is, I believe, roughly the ratio that we get in applications.
The parenthetical "almost" is because there is probably a slight de facto bias in some cases because the students' letter writers don't take their job seriously. We've had applications in which an advisor sent *identical* letters for multiple candidates, only changing the name of the "best student I've ever taught" at the top. (Did they really think we wouldn't notice that 5 people that year were all the best???) There's no reason in principle that this couldn't affect a wide range of nationalities; in practice, we see this phenomenon most often from India and from China (probably because the letter writers have a large number of requests from their students).
Test taking skills are unfortunately of little value in the real world, as are skills in doing homework problems. Coming out of the software industry, what is so dismaying to me is not only the lack of basic algebra skills, but that in lacking such skills, people lack the tools to do their jobs more effectively. How can someone do their job well if they can't communicate effectively, if they can't analyze their own work, if they can't examine their own reasoning, if they can't tell when they've made an error? There are talented people out there, and then there are people who struggle every day to get their job done, because they haven't mastered the basics. More and more we depend on educated workers, which means that the quality of K-12 education matters more and more.
But the topic isn't American students lagging their grandparents. It's American students lagging their contemporary colleagues from elsewhere.
Let me just mention that over here in Europe, the schools are well funded, but the universities fall apart. In the USA, the top universities swim in money, but the schools fall apart. This seems to go a long way toward explaining why the USA skims off most Nobel prizes and at the same time lags way behind the rest of the First World in the PISA test (all hail Finland and South Korea).
Great comments from everyone, especially Rebecca.
We haven't seen a huge societal decline because while the society as a whole needs to be technologically literate, it doesn't need to be scientifically literate (unfortunately). America stays on top by logging in more hours and by working more efficiently and more creatively. That last one is especially important, since although the American education system apparently isn't the best in straight up "book learning", it does put a premium on creativity, personal expression, and teamwork.
I do think America is starting to slip when it comes to innovation (it's still on top for the moment). We only stay on top of science by relying on our economic resources and on the talents of our top tier students and scientists. I agree that we do poach talent from other countries due to the quality of our university system and to the lure of our extravagant standard of living.
I've yet to see a story on this topic that mentions the standard deviation in the scores for each group in comparison to the differences, probably because journalists don't know what that means. But they should understand sampling bias, and that is not discussed. Do they really test the same sample in every country?
I repeat this point raised by others because my experience with foreign-educated physicists is that they always express surprise at the general nature of our HS and college curricula. They were specializing in high school, and did not have classes on "shop math" or "auto repair" in their high school.
On the larger issue, performance on a test (even one allegedly designed to test higher-order thinking) might not tell you if the person has the entrepreneurial skills or gumption to make it happen. Or if his or her country's economy is structured to encourage and reward innovation. If they do better in school and we do better in life, we have made a better deal ... yet one that could still be improved. I also wonder if all of it could be explained by a decline in teaching "story problems", which require the critical analysis skills this test must measure. Most of my students appear to have never seen a word problem where they have to come up with the equation to be solved.
I think selection bias also applies to the "good old days" question on several levels. Not only is the SAT being taken by a larger fraction of HS students who plan to go to college, it is also being taken by some who can't pass the HS exit exam and hope to substitute a passing SAT score for that exam.
The other is that we know what we were doing back in HS, but we seldom had any insight into what others our age were capable of doing at that time. Look back at that essay you wrote in high school or as a freshman in college. Now if that was an A, imagine what a C looked like! We were not the median, mean, or mode of students back then so we should not be surprised when the median lacks skills we had.
#11| JVP
"At Caltech, it is normal for undergrads to also be taking some graduate courses, and doing as well as the grad students."
This makes the point, I think. The only grad students at Caltech taking classes are first year students and their undergraduate classmates are going to be juniors or more likely seniors. So the comparison here is between a Caltech senior, presumably educated at some pressure cooker elite high school and then Caltech vs. the grad student from some less pretigious background, and they are about even. Factor in the differing motivations - grad student grades don't matter, after all - and it's even more noteworthy.
All I have to say is "No child left behind" is called "Every child left behind" by almost every public school teacher I know. Perhaps this recent misguided attempt to fix things is just one more on the pile of what is making them worse.
I am just going to drop a note, as I am a teacher. A lot of the reason I think our test scores are lower is because we educate everyone in this country.. and everyone takes the test. In other countries, this doesn't happen. People who are meant for college are put on that track long before they even reach what is equal to high school, and so yes, their test scores are higher, because they aren't being brought down by those of lesser ability.
No child left behind is an attempt to expand on this, but a lot of the problem is, not everyone is meant for college and teachers are being forced to spend a lot of time and energy trying to get these lower performance students to perform better. It is a program for a perfect world, where everyone wants to learn and wants to go to college. It is a program that does not work in reality because it is not based on reality.
Fact is, students are smarter than ever. They are just lacking in certain areas of education because we don't have enough teachers, too many students in the classroom, and not splitting the students up according to ability. Yes, splitting them up makes a huge difference in the quality of education they receive. Teachers respond to smart classes by doing smarter things. But when you get a class of mixed ability levels, you can't suddenly do a lot of this stuff because it'll be beyond those of lower ability. But, you can't do too dumb, or it will be boring to those of higher ability..
They like to say, well, it's good for the slower students because it exposes them to higher things.. and it's good for the high ability students because it lets them teach the lower and reinforce skills. Uh.. no. That doesn't work.. They will do that on their own in the hallway. The smart kids can teach each other. And from experience, most of the smart kids don't want to teach the lower ability levels. And the lower ability levels know they aren't going to college and so really don't care. They aren't interested in being taught.
We need to stop the testing, actually... a lot of valuable class time is wasted on it. The kids need not better test taking skills, we need more teachers who are highly trained and educated in their field. But you know, most that get that kind of training, go on to do other things because there's no money teaching. We need to pump money into our education system. Lots of it... and it will be years before we see a return, but that is what is needed.
please tell me the headline is an ironic joke. i'm pretty sure it should read "*are* our schools failing?"
and, yes, i also realize the irony of criticizing grammar with improperly capitalized sentences.
The feeling of worse schooling for the current generation is universal. I'm Dutch and there was a show on T.V. where the smartest student of a secondary education tier. I've had several 'head meet table-moments when the finalists couldn´t even get what I consider easy answers correct.
That said while I was going through school the setup was as follows:
Primary education until 12 year old.
After that a choice between lowest tier of vocational schooling (4 years) or a choice of 3 tiers of secondary education. (4, 5 & 6 years).
Then depending on the choice of secondary schooling a selection of one of two tiers of vocational schooling (highest is equivalent of a bachelor study) or university.
And to make it more confusing it is possible to migrate between tiers of schooling after graduation (only having to complete a part of the new tier) or to university after completing the first year of the highest vocational tier.
This makes a direct comparison of the K12 grading system to the dutch system fairly hard. We're already moving people out of general education while in the US the K12 program is only halfway through, only the smartest people stay in general education until they reach 18 years
I have been teaching math and physics in a suburban high school (east coast) for thirty years. I have seen very little difference in the top of the class students. The most motivated and talented get into the elite schools, and do very well.
I have noticed a difference in the next tier of students. They wish to do well, but believe that activities and a "well-rounded" resume are most important. They feel they need to have something to catch the eye of the admissions department. Their passion is to be active, not to learn.
The top group will take a concept home, and come in the next day with a batch of questions that indicate that they have tried to extend the idea. The next group will come in and want to know what will be on the test.
please tell me the headline is an ironic joke. i'm pretty sure it should read "*are* our schools failing?"
See here. Scan down for January 11th, 2000.
have noticed a difference in the next tier of students. They wish to do well, but believe that activities and a "well-rounded" resume are most important. They feel they need to have something to catch the eye of the admissions department.
Makes sense. A lot of people want prestigious credentials and connections. A lot more, sadly, than are really interested in the academic material itself.
I think we have to accept that some people are going to try to game the system. Not much to be done about that. But the system could at least be designed so the gamers are pushed in productive rather than useless directions. Any changes you'd recommend in that direction, Joe?
Kimberly, your logic is flawed.
the US is not the only country that "educates everyone". Countries that fared better than the US are also those where everyone is educated. Canada, Finland, Japan, New Zealand, the UK...
It's not like the US was shown lacking in comparison with Chad or Bangladesh. THAT would support your comments...but the reality doesn't.