American kids, dumber than dirt

[1prophet]

Stupid in America

If you think the above is too biased then here is a UNICEF study from 2002 that tries to be as unbiased as possible.

Poor Marks For U.S. Education System

South Korea has the most effective education system in the world's richest countries, with Japan in second place and the United States and Germany near the bottom, a United Nations study said Tuesday.

The ranking "provides the first 'big picture' comparison of the relative effectiveness of education systems across the developed world," the UNICEF study said.

"It is based not on the conventional yardstick of how many students reach what level of education, but on testing what pupils actually know and what they are able to do," UNICEF said.

It said it based the study on five different tests of 14 and 15 year olds to determine their abilities in reading, math and science.

The scores of the tests were disclosed individually in 2001 and earlier. What is new about the study is that it averages the results to give "the most comprehensive picture to date of how well each nation's education system is functioning as a whole," UNICEF said.

Dewayne Matthews, vice president of the Denver-based Education Commission of the States, said the U.S. showing in the UNICEF ratings was expected by people who follow international rankings in education and emphasized the need for reform.

"A lot of that has been driven by this perception that our schools are simply not good enough and they don't compare well with systems in other countries," Matthews told The Associated Press.

The blame or credit for the results does not go exclusively to a nation's schools, said the 36-page study, part of a series of "report cards" produced by UNICEF's Innocenti Research Center in Florence, Italy.

"It is clear that educational disadvantage is born not at school but in the home," said the report. "Learning begins at birth" and is fostered by"a loving, secure, stimulating environment."

UNICEF spokesman Patrick McCormick said the study had been unable to draw conclusions on a range of factors, such as how much was spent on education. Some countries spent less and did better.

The study also didn't get into whether extreme competition was a factor in Japanese or Korean results.

"We didn't really get into why. We found out that there was no one answer," McCormick said. "We tried linkages with the teacher-student ratios, with various things, and it didn't work.

"The biggest thing is obviously the socio-economic background of the child and how well-educated their parents are."

The study said that "South Korea and Japan sit firmly at the
head of the class."

"Germany, with its strong educational and intellectual tradition, occupies 19th place out of the 24 nations," just behind the United States in 18th place.

Germany is unusual in that it sorts children at an early age into professional, white-collar and blue-collar curricula, the study said. The German labor market's demands for particular qualifications "meant that the track a child ends up in has a particularly strong impact on later life," it said.

Germany and Denmark finished in the bottom half of tests on reading and math, but scored high in a separate evaluation of adult literacy, "again illustrating the danger of treating any one survey with undue reverence," the study said.

The United States, however, finished low in each test and in adult literacy.

McCormick said the study had not attempted to explain why the United States had fared badly.

"That's for them to pick up and run with," said McCormick. "It's that sort of country. The countries that economically are very diverse, with big immigrant populations, with lots of moving around, with a huge poverty gap, probably are going to show these sorts of results with education itself."

UNICEF said it based its conclusions on combining results of tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, conducted in 2000 and the Trends in International Math and Science Study, or TIMSS, given in 1995 and 1999. TIMSS is backed in the United States by the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation and globally by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

UNICEF said it also factored in results of the International Adult Literacy Survey of 1994 and 1998.

UNICEF said combining the tests produced "a more reliable overview" that helps meet criticism of any given test that may have been questioned for its cultural neutrality

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: yllus
Editorial tripe.

The human race gets smarter, taller, faster and stronger with every generation. Only the ego of the generations that have come before hold to this "we're getting dumber" crap. Get over yourselves, people.

It's definitely a fearmongering piece. Having said that, I agree only partly with what you've said.

Collectively, the human race is smarter through each generation as the wealth of knowledge accumulates. We might be getting taller because of better health care (better nutrition?), but we are not getting stronger. Aren't a majority of Canadians and Americans either obese or overweight? People spend less time walking and being outside, and more time driving and having machines complete their difficult work for them.

We're not getting faster; the pace of life is getting faster. It's part of a theory called dromology, and it affects how we interpret life. We have no patience or analytical skills because those are less valued in the fast paced modern world. For instance:

Don't go to the library to get an answer - go to Google/Wikipedia.
Don't walk to the store - race there as fast as you can in your car.
Don't wait until you get home to call someone - do it now on your cellphone.
Don't think for yourself - turn on the TV and let the mass media form your opinions for you.

People are dumb because they're too impatient and busy to stop and think.

I've often wondered why the increases in worker productivity hasn't resulted in shorter work schedule.

Yea...my parents often mention how in the 70s, the prevailing attitude was that new technology would make everyone so productive that they could accomplish more work in less time.

Of course, greed has now taken over. If you can be that productive in 40 hours, why not make it 80? Think of all the frickin' money you'll make for the company! In fact, we'll give you a laptop and BlackBerry so you're in perpetual contact and therefore you can work all the time! My dad told me about this guy at his office who answers email on his BlackBerry at 3am on a regular basis. How fucked is that?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: akshatp
Cliffs? That shit is too much to read...

Looks like you just proved her point.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: scott

For one thing, for me deep concentration waw/is a key to success, and just about everything in the ordinary environment now is anti-concentration; especially the exaggerated emphasis on entertainment.

Young people mostly have no patience to read a few paragraphs and think about the meaning, as in your OP. They just want the junk-food Cliffs served up fast, so they don't have to do any work thinking. That sounds insulting but it does seem true.

Thanks for substantiating my post. Spot on. :thumbsup:

 

[Reckoner]

Sounds good

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: BigJ
Hopefully that's a satirical article.

Not a single student knowing how to use a ruler? Unless he's teaching special ed kids or in the inner city, I doubt that's true.

I think I remember a similar article from 1970. And 1950 and 1910 and 1840 and 1770 ......

damn, you're old. care to enlighten AT towards your immortal secrets?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life)

What a load of shit that is.

touche'

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: LoKe
Oh, and for the record, you can be smart without being literate.

How far would someone who is illiterate and yet "smart" get though?

He might earn the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the law of the photoelectric effect.

Einstein, after all, didn't learn to read until later in life due to a learning disability.

Are you sure he was illiterate at an early age? He was introduced to Kant and Euclid by the age of ten. By twelve he taught himself Euclidean geometry.

I believe he had an issue with speech when he was younger and didn't do well in school. People also make the claim that he was bad at math because he failed it. Simply not true. The man had a problem with rote memorization and didn't care for certain schools. It certainly doesn't mean he was illiterate.

 

[Marinski]

This is not even worth debating over because the same things are said about the future generation, by the previous generation, every generation.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Excelsior

from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life)

What a load of shit that is.

touche'

 

[BigRig04]

I've got to ask, what is a "kid" by this article/discussions standard?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: JS80
What a joke of a writer...he picks a freaking sample of students in OAKLAND, which is considered inner-city minority dominated, and extrapolates that across the US?

What sample? All I saw was an anecdote from a burned out old teacher.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: BigJ
Hopefully that's a satirical article.

Not a single student knowing how to use a ruler? Unless he's teaching special ed kids or in the inner city, I doubt that's true.

I think I remember a similar article from 1970. And 1950 and 1910 and 1840 and 1770 ......

damn, you're old. care to enlighten AT towards your immortal secrets?

There can be only one!

 

[imported_stev]

Time to go visit my high school. If I believe this article, I expect to see most of the students banging their rulers on the desk out of frustration trying to get them to work. Only one of them will know what the word "frustration" means and none of them will be able to spell it.

I guess a lot has changed since I graduated high school in 2000. Back then (the good ol' days, I guess), we could write, spell, do some math, and knew some history and science. Some of us even participated in music or sports. I played video games after school since age 7 so it's a damn miracle I can even tie my shoes, let alone spell "shoes".

I wish people like this would use their own schooling and cobble together some scientifically-based proof. These teachers have been doing this for years, they should have all the proof they need! Many teachers probably give the same or similar assignments year after year. Take 10 randomly-selected assignments from, say, 1995 and 10 from, say, 2005 and have someone else re-grade them consistently as a group and see if there's a statistical difference (if they remember how to do that). There may still be an issue of objectivity if all teachers are convinced every current student is an idiot, but at least it wouldn't be purely anecdotal (not that I know what that means).

 

[GoatMonkey]

I think that there is so much information and stuff to learn now that kids need more school than they did years ago. If you grew up in the 50's there were no computers to learn how to use. It's not very likely that any kids today could use a slide rule, but it's not all that useful anymore.

My opinion is that when you've graduated college at 22 today, you've learned about the same equivalent percentage of what you need to know as a kid in the 50's graduating from high school at 18. With the exception of a few things of course.

The kids today have not gotten dumber, they just have more to learn. Colleges today are doing a good job of teaching kids how to learn, and how to get the information they need when they need it.

 

[Casawi]

Indeed they are. I refuse to have kids in this country and/or put them thru this educational system except college of course. Let's not learn algebra until college, watch MTV instead...lol... America Fvck yeah... coming to save the motha fvcking world yeahh...

 

[Queasy]

May be right

I was just checking my school e-mail and read this message from a student:

HEy THERE WELL iM JUS CONCERNd 0N My GRADE...i WANNA N0E iF THEREz ANy EXtRA CREDiT W0RK 0R MAKE UP W0RK i KAN DU 2 BRiNG My GRADE UP JUS A BiT...WELL iF ANyTHiNG GiD AT MEEH AND LEMME N0E iF i HAVE ANy CHANCEz 2RAiSE My GRADE PLz ND THx =]...< br>
g0NE?

NO LIE. Sent to all her teachers. Term ends Friday.

 

[wyvrn]

Do I believe it? No, I generally think each generation is smarter and has more to deal with than the last. Kids don't build stuff anymore because we are in the information age, not the industrial. As a whole, we as society do, however, have to learn how to use computers, multi task at work far more than previous generations, and generally parse through more information and therefore analyze it more precisely than previous generations. The ways of the world have changed and it seems like the teacher in the article is trying to judge students on outmoded standards.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: LoKe
Oh, and for the record, you can be smart without being literate.

How far would someone who is illiterate and yet "smart" get though?

Theres room for a Bush joke here but I cant find it.

Probably because Bush is the reverse.

Along those lines, I'm suprised nobody has suggested we stop dumping a billion dollars a week into a sandbox and start putting it into education.
Oh wait, I guess I just did.


EDIT: Begin Rant

I left the Navy last year and took a job at a microchip plant in Oregon. My first week here I ate in a small diner on a slow Sunday night. Spent most of it talking to the older waitress who was happy to fill me in on the state history. She told me about the mutant trees which were supposed to grow fast but ended up making poor lumber and a lot of jobs being lost.

The part of her conversation that really interested me was her opinion on public education. The state doesnt put much money into it and really doesnt expect much from the students or teachers anyway. They have an outrageous number of days off each month and low standards for the days class is actually in session. Kids skip constantly and no one chases them down or holds their diploma in check for missing credits or unfulfilled detention. Oregon actually rates very low nationwide.

That first week I thought it was just the ravings of an older lady who didnt like seeing her world changed around her (a common thing) but in the past year I have seen and heard an aweful lot that backs up her viewpoint. They really dont challenge kids, they dont hold them to higher standards each year, and diplomas are simply handed out, which doesnt mean much because even if you worked hard and earned it the quality of education it represents is a joke.
I have ranted in other threads about all the kids I see running around in the middle of the day, in the middle of the week, also about all the parents who home school or send kids to private or out of state schools. I wont go over the details again, they just makes me mad.

You know what the really sad thing is? These people are pretty damn smart!
Sad that so many good minds are wasting away in a crummy education system. I like the area and I like my job, but when I finally do the whole Wife-and-Kid thing we will probably have to move away. I wonder how many states I'll have to research before finding one with decent standards, with the kind of education that will help the U.S. compete in the new millenium.

END RANT.

 

[TehMac]

I have a feeling a lot of it is as many people stated, parents are busy running around, kids stare at the TV all day, there's no conversation going on, there's no discussion of any sort of thinking, meals aren't being eaten together, it's not that kids have distractions, there are plenty of rich kids at my school who have iPods, and iPhones, and Blackberries, etc. and this is a pretty competitive school...and they get good grades, for the most part. Then there are a lot of rich punks, so it's hard to say. What it really depends on is the child's environment, and there is something as pseudo environment, where the kid was raised, and how. Many families that issues like this aren't really families...whether the couple never got married or not, usually not married, but a lot of the time a divorce happens, parents become retards, don't care for kids, throw lots of money at the kids, etc.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
Do I believe it? No, I generally think each generation is smarter and has more to deal with than the last. Kids don't build stuff anymore because we are in the information age, not the industrial. As a whole, we as society do, however, have to learn how to use computers, multi task at work far more than previous generations, and generally parse through more information and therefore analyze it more precisely than previous generations. The ways of the world have changed and it seems like the teacher in the article is trying to judge students on outmoded standards.

We were able to land a man on the Moon in 1969, but now we're trying to figure out how to make it happen in 2007.

People are definitely getting dumber. Talking to kids nowadays (including college kids) leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind. They're idiots.

Give someone some tools and tell them to build something and they have no idea. They're being bred as pure end-users... like sheep.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life)

What a load of shit that is.

While it's hyperbole, it has been proven that exposure to television before 17 month stunts a child's mental development. Even the "Baby Einstein" and other supposedly educational programs have been shown to delay children's development of language skills and impair their socialization. If you really want to foster a child's intellect, it's better to let them bang pots and pans together than to plop them down in front of an "educational" video.

Even after 17 months, there is no evidence that so-called "educational" videos provide any stimulation of a child's intellectual development.

Link to the research study.

The problem is not so much the videos in and of themselves, but rather that it is being used as a substitute for human interaction and as a replacement for reading to children. Reading to children and telling them stories has a proven positive effect on a their intellectual development.

ZV

 

[oznerol]

I wouldn't say kids today are any less or more intelligent than kids of the past. The biggest difference is a lack of work ethic, impatience, and a severe false sense of entitlement.

That, and very few read anymore.

Granted, I don't read and never really did, but I hear it's good for you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
I think a lot of it is the parents not being involved, and from a school standpoint, the teachers union does keep a lot of god awful teachers employed too. Unfortunately, in this PC world we live in, our youngsters are coddled too much. Everyone is special, and when everyone is special, no one is. Some people need to fail in life. We need to weed out the ditchdiggers so the astronauts of the world can succeed.

yep i agree with you,

to quote batman

"Why do we fall, sir? So that we might better learn to pick ourselves up"


sadly today no one picks themself up and soon it seems no one will fall

Wasn't that Alfred that said that?

Bruce's father said that in the beginning of the movie when he rescued Bruce after he fell in the well. Alfred repeats it later in the movie though.

Each generation swears the upcoming generation is stupid. And that upcoming generation will swear their elders are dumber than dirt.

Somehow we manage to press forward though.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: wyvrn
Do I believe it? No, I generally think each generation is smarter and has more to deal with than the last. Kids don't build stuff anymore because we are in the information age, not the industrial. As a whole, we as society do, however, have to learn how to use computers, multi task at work far more than previous generations, and generally parse through more information and therefore analyze it more precisely than previous generations. The ways of the world have changed and it seems like the teacher in the article is trying to judge students on outmoded standards.

We were able to land a man on the Moon in 1969, but now we're trying to figure out how to make it happen in 2007.

People are definitely getting dumber. Talking to kids nowadays (including college kids) leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind. They're idiots.

Give someone some tools and tell them to build something and they have no idea. They're being bred as pure end-users... like sheep.

We cannot put a man on the moon? Hell we have a space station and probes to Mars, with manned flight soon to follow. What the hell are you talking about?

College kids today are younger-minded, due to living longer, but they are pretty well educated. And see my original post, kids don't build things anymore b/c our society has changed. Just like kids in the 60's didn't have the skills to write web applications.