You'll Be Shocked by How Many of the World's Top Students Are American

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/youll-be-shocked-by-how-many-of-the-worlds-top-students-are-american/275423/



When you look at the average performance of American students on international test scores, our kids come off as a pretty middling bunch. If you rank countries based on their very fine differences, we come in 14th in reading, 23rd in science, and 25th in math. Those finishes led Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to flatly declare that "we're being out-educated."

And on average, maybe we are. But averages also sometimes obscure more than they reveal. My colleague Derek Thompson has written before about how, once you compare students from similar income and class backgrounds, our relative performance improves dramatically, suggesting that our educational problems may be as much about our sheer number of poor families as our supposedly poor schools. This week, I stumbled on another data point that belies the stereotype of dimwitted American teens.

When it comes to raw numbers, it turns out we generally have far more top performers than any other developed nation.

That's according to the graph below from Economic Policy Institute's recent report on America's supply of science and tech talent. Among OECD nations in 2006, the United States claimed a third of high-performing students in both reading and science, far more than our next closest competitor, Japan. On math, we have a bit less to be proud of -- we just claimed 14 percent of the high-performers, compared to 15.2 percent for Japan and 16.2 percent of South Korea.

[reformist2]

1. US students have a broader bell curve distribution than those of other countries.

As with everything in the US, the dispersion is greater, more people at both extremes.

[AngryAmish]

21. Depends on the country

The average American is both smarter and better educated than say Angola.

[HiPointDem]

2. kr

[oberliner]

3. This is based on standardized test scores, right?

Ridiculous to make any such comparisons that way.

[Chico Man]

7. I agree

Ranking by standardized test doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. I'll take we'll rounded innovators over great test takers.

[oberliner]

29. Thanks

I'm right there with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. And the proportion of high-performing US students is lower than many advanced OECD countries

The article mentions the big population of the US is the main reason the US numbers of high performers is large; but says "anyway, we're above OECD average". But remember that the OECD includes some large countries that are not that developed - Mexico and Turkey. So a significant part of comparing the numbers to the whole OECD is comparing the USA to countries you'd think the USA didn't see as competitors.

If we go to the Salzman and Lowell 2008 paper, where they first did these calculations, we find:





So, I'm not 'shocked' in the least. The US high-performing numbers are mediocre, among the most developed countries. When you look at the percentages for the lowest-performing group, you find only Turkey and Mexico are worse than the USA. You can get the science performance figures here: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2006/39704105.xls

[A Little Weird]

13. That's sobering

We have a lot of smart people but I am afraid the growing income inequality is going to mean that a lot of kids don't get the education they should.

[iemitsu]

14. The Us may not want to consider countires like Mexico

competitors, and neither may you, but to only compare the US to highly developed nations is not a fair comparison either.
The US has wealth disparity greater than most third world nations. We are not "highly developed" when it comes to economic equality and many, many studies tie poverty to struggling in school.

[Starry Messenger]

31. +1000

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Which is a bit of a cop-out - that economic inequality needs fixing

What we could do is take the proportion of a country achieving at least a certain level in the test. While there is significant poverty in the US (though it's not alone in that in the highest developed countries), we could see how many get to at least Level 3 - which, for the whole OECD, is 52.6%. Most children in the US aren't in poverty (even when defining poverty as relative to the USA; define it as relative to the OECD overall, and even fewer are), so a measure of how many achieve what over half of the whole OECD do shouldn't be that excused by poverty. Here it is (from the spreadsheet I gave the link to earlier):

Finland 82.3
Canada 70.9
Japan 69.5
Korea 67.6
Australia 66.9
New Zealand 66.6
Netherlands 65.9
Germany 63.3
Belgium 62.2
Switzerland 62.2
Austria 61.9
United Kingdom 61.5
Czech Republic 61.1
Ireland 60.5
Hungary 58.9
Sweden 58.5
France 56.0
Denmark 55.6
Poland 55.5
Iceland 53.6
Spain 53.0
OECD total 52.6
Luxembourg 52.5
Slovak Republic 51.8
Norway 51.7
United States 51.4
Italy 47.1
Greece 47.0
Portugal 46.7
Turkey 22.2
Mexico 18.3

So, what we see is that the US does OK (but not especially well) for the top level - but that's only 1.5%. As soon as you look below that, the US performance drops off.

[Progressive dog]

17. Yes it is

The problem is that some Americans refuse to admit that we have an education gap. We need to fix it, not deny it exists.

[Demeter]

5. Garbage in, garbage out

You'd be even more surprised at how many of those top US students are actually immigrants or first generation...not yet mired in the average ignorance.

[whathehell]

8. Maybe you are describing yourself, Demeter

Are you an immigrant or a first generation American "not yet mired in the average ignorance"?

[leftynyc]

9. What bullshit

Neither Steve Jobs or Bill Gates fit your narrow(minded) criteria. We have brilliant scientists, writers, doctors - what is it with so many on this board always having to shit on on the US? It's like they're getting paid for it.

[whathehell]

11. Thank you. DU has become a haven for America haters, foreign & domestic.

It's as ugly and stupid as any other broad brush national smear.

There are some here who firmly believe that you can't be "progressive"

if you don't shit on Everything America -- including its people.

[Newest Reality]

12. Quite the contrary

Using words like hate, ugly, stupid, smear and shit may not be a good way to make your point.

Consider the possibility that many people here are concerned, vigilant and well-informed.

Perhaps it is possible that the criticism and lack of apathy reflect an understanding and investment that do not fall under the extremist broad brush that is a convenient projection suggesting something other than the topic.

However, thank you for caring enough to present your opinion, no matter what it suggests.

[xchrom]

16. ...

[leftynyc]

23. Perhaps where you live

the vast majority are slack jawed morons but here in NY we have some of the brightest minds, the best universities, the best hospitals, the best of the arts. And that's just one city - all over this country there is innovation, breakthrough research, the most nobel prices in science come from Harvard or Harvard Medical school. What makes you think you're more well informed than anyone else on this board?

The post that started this subthread contended that the brightest minds were first generation immigrants and that clearly is not the case. Why are you defending that falsehood?

[Newest Reality]

25. I appreciate your

opinion and broad-based comments indicating your particular view.

Where did I write that I was defending the OP in particular? How did you come to the conclusion that I think I am anything at all? When I spoke of DU in general, I did not indicate my status concerning how informed I am or am not, nor did I compare my level of comprehension to anyone else.

I would like a little more accuracy in your response rather than what seems to be trolling for an argument. However, it just could be that you are reading into things without pausing to reflect on that. I'm seeing your thoughts expressed as an overlay on what I wrote, so I have no other response or argument to present to that.

[leftynyc]

28. I said nothing about the OP

and I was referring to your post that included this:

Consider the possibility that many people here are concerned, vigilant and well-informed.

Perhaps it is possible that the criticism and lack of apathy reflect an understanding and investment that do not fall under the extremist broad brush that is a convenient projection suggesting something other than the topic.

If you want to claim not that you weren't inferring that the poster in question wasn't concerned, vigilant and well informed, then just you were trying to convey as you obviously were far from clear. Is that accurate enough for you?

[Newest Reality]

33. Nope!

"Consider the possibility that many people here are concerned, vigilant and well-informed."

That's left open enough for you to overlay what you will, right? It is obvious that "many people" is inclusive. Where you seeing something like: "unlike yourself." at the end of that sentence?

Infer as you will.

That was not a veiled attack on the post I responded to. That was a response concerning my opinion of members at DU in a more general sense.

Otherwise I would have presented a direct, ad hominem statement to that effect directed at the person who posted.

I was, however, alluding to other factors in relation to the impetus of the post and "perhaps it is possible" in plain English was inquisitive, not necessarily accusatory.

Is that clear to you now?

[leftynyc]

37. Ah - word games

Sorry - I stopped those in high school.

[Newest Reality]

39. Thanks.

Yes, you do that pretty well!

Kudos.

[whathehell]

41. Sorry, Newest, but I think not,

and since leftnyc and I have membership dates that precede yours by years, not to mention post counts

that indicate much higher levels of engagement on this board, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take

your advice on "what to consider" when dealing with people here very seriously since I do, in fact,

find your post to be, not only in error, but presumptuous and almost laughably patronizing.

Your little "scold" on my language was especially revealing, since anyone active on this board for any

length of time, knows DUers to be fierce defenders of the First Amendment and their "sensitivity"

to negative words -- like yours, I suspect -- to be dependant on their view of the topic being discussed.

Have a nice evening.

[Demeter]

20. Unlike your heroes

I couldn't afford to drop out of Harvard and be financed by my father's buddies...as Bill Gates III did. I couldn't afford to apply, even.

I went to a state school, on a state NHS scholarship, and was grateful. The tuition at the time was $200. Per year.

Don't compare golden apples with the 99%.

And by the way, the foreign students outshone the US born (first generation to go to college, from gritty Lowell, Massachusetts) and they were there because it was the cheapest school (engineering) in the country....even for foreigners.

PS: Steve Jobs WAS a first generation, adopted or not.

[leftynyc]

24. Well, bully for you

Even in this damaged beyond belief country, you managed to get a college degree and don't have to work in a sweatshop getting paid peanuts, or be forced to marry at 13 and never learn to read. - perhaps if you had to live in some hellhole for a while, you would appreciate the opportunities you get here that you would get in few other places...especially if you happen to be a woman. Not to mention the opportunity to bitch about whatever you want without getting arrested for it. Shit on the US all you want - I'll thank the G-ddess every single day I don't live in some shithole.

[Demeter]

26. That was three generations ago

I'm old enough (but not fortunate enough) to be a grandmother. You see, my first child is disabled at birth, and I live a very marginal life taking care of her. Yes, I work for peanuts and take all the aid I can get for her.

I fully expect to get arrested for "bitching", if not droned, before my life is through. Assuming the State is stupid enough to take on the cost of caring for my daughter..

And Lowell was a hellhole. Until Tsongas got some federal money there.
And you, you are no progressive. What you are is unspeakable.

[leftynyc]

30. Really? Unspeakable?

I'm terribly hurt by yet another person who thinks they speak for everyone here and can judge who and who is not a progressive (yawn). I'm also old enough to be a grandma so I couldn't care less about your age. Perhaps you should learn about what happens to disabled children in many places before you decry the US. And really, you may want to get that paranoia about the government arresting or droning you for bitching looked at.

[Chico Man]

38. Ivy Leagues are need-based

There we many, many poor people attending all Ivy League institutions.

The rich that are accepted do pay, and pay A LOT.

[Demeter]

40. Tell it to the Boomers.

They weren't then.

[Chico Man]

6. I'd be interested in ranking ability to innovate

Might as well rank by iq or SAT score.

There is still something to be said about growing up in America.

[whathehell]

10. Definition of Flame bait: Anything Positive About Americans

All the usual suspects are responding in character.

[ananda]

15. But can they think critically? Show that they are not just brain-smart ...

... but also heart-smart?

[NewJeffCT]

22. It's hard to judge

but, I know my daughter is doing more "critical thinking" type stuff in public school in 5th grade than I did in at a similar age and even up to high school. And, reading is a requirement now in schools. When I was in school in the 70s and 80s, there were only a small handful of students that read for pleasure (me and one or two other boys reading Sci-Fi/Fantasy stuff, and a few girls reading romance novels stuff) Now, kids of both sexes gobble up Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, etc.

[whathehell]

42. Of course they can, though I'm not sure what "brain smart" as opposed to "heart smart" has

to do with critical thinking.

[NewJeffCT]

18. Thanks for validating what I've been saying for a while

the US students at the top are doing just fine. However, the students at the bottom are doing worse than in other OECD countries. Similarly, we also have a greater percentage of our population that is poor than most other OECD countries, and those that are poor tend to do worse in schools. So, the greater percentage of poor drags down the scores as a whole.

[xchrom]

19. we HATE talking about class in this country.

no amount of standardized testing is going to fix that 1 issue -- too many students going to school under supported for a myriad of reasons.

plus i have a visceral hatred of schools being reduced to 'bubble' tests -- it demeans everything.

[NewJeffCT]

27. Even good schools in wealthy districts can be under-supported

However, the wealthy parents can make up the difference by buying laptops/tablets for their children to assist with studying, send them to extra classes (Kumon, Huntington, etc), having a tutor, spending more for a broader education - music lessons, summer camps, foreign language lessons, etc.

In a poor district, the parents can't afford any of that "extra" for their children. The key is hopefully helping the parents rise out of poverty so their children can have the extras as well. Of course, without better schools, then it's more difficult.

As the saying goes - "Why is there always enough money for war, but never enough for education?"

[d_r]

32. sigh.

Yes, I agree that the comparisons between educational outcomes in the US and other industrial nations is obfuscated by the achievement gap in the US and the high number of children living in poverty in the US. If you compare US children in middle- and upper-SES with other nations, then the comparison is much more favorable than if you include the large number of children in the US that are living in poverty.

But the graph from last week's OECD report does not really help that argument as much as the Atlantic's author suggests. The US population is 311 million, the population of Japan is 127 million. So the US is larger by a magnitude of almost three. Should we be proud, then, that the US holds a 33% share of top science students whereas Japan holds a 17% share? Or that the US holds a 14% share of top math students compared to Japan's 15%?

Seriously?

Where is the critical thinking here? The reading percentages of US 34% vs. Japan 12% is about what we'd expect.

Admittedly, those are whole population numbers vs. the numbers of school children because I didn't care enough to google around for the numbers of children - the flaw here seems too obvious to me for the effort.

ETA wait, its right there in the article I didn't bother to click through and read. "We claim roughly 27 percent of the group's 15-to-19-year-olds. Japan, in contrast, has a smidge over 7 percent."

SO, a magnitude of almost four in the total number of high school age students, and the US is ahead of Japan in science by a magnitude of around 2. That's half what it should be if we were equal. We have four times as many students and less of the top math students.

I agree 100% that standardized tests are useless and I would add that this type of cross-cultural comparison is useless, but my point here is that the numbers do not suggest what the author thinks they do.

[Demeter]

34. It's called how to lie with statistics

Mark Twain knew all about it...

[Apophis]

36. We're being out-performed because we're teaching students how to pass exams.

NCLB was the worst thing that ever happened to schools in this country.

Students should be taught instead of worrying about whether or not they pass standardized tests.