Randorama wrote:Explain WHY, please. You make sweeping statements without backing them up, as always. Are you really so dumb as to think that any rhetorical and weaseling sentence such as "it is disingenuous that..." will magically prove your statement worth any consideration?
I'll simply post a blurb from a Wikipedia article with the most relevant bit bolded(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_ad ... ive_region):
Under the One China, Two Systems principle, the two SARs continue to possess their own governments, multi-party legislatures, legal systems, police forces, monetary systems, separate customs territory, immigration policies, national sports teams, official languages, postal systems, academic and educational systems, and substantial competence in external relations that are different or independent from the People's Republic of China
Randorama wrote:So, why England is not sending e.g. Cambridge, South Korea Gangnam, and so on? Please, get a grip and stop being intellectually dishonest.
I already answered this question honestly. You're not even reading.
Randorama wrote:And in fact the numbers show that certain Asian countries, but also Finland and NL, have been improving for a while. Learn to read tables and other people's posts, thank you.
If I gave the impression that all European nations are declining(I didn't), then that would be an error on my part. If I did not, I don't know what you're point is supposed to be here. Finland has made excellent educational reforms in recent years as are well known.
Randorama wrote:In fact, the economy based on people graduating from MIT could be considered an independent economy on its own, much like that generated by Harvard alumni, Cambridge alumni, etc. Furthermore, I invite to check by how much the percentage of international, Asian students HAS INCREASED, in the last few years, in OZ, US and UK, as a certain level of education cannot be obtained at home.
Why would I look up data which I already know, and a point which I even brought up in the post you're supposed to be responding to? In case it's not clear to you, I'm not defending higher education in Japan. You may think I'm wrong in downplaying it to the extent I have, and many would agree with you there, but bringing up international students from Asian countries wanting to attend rich universities like MIT etc is not contradicting anything I have said.
Randorama wrote:You mis-representing me once more, as I discussed which countries better connect lower and higher education, regardless of the geographical region. Well done, once more.
You took "the amount of universities in the top 100, compared to the size of a country's population". I don't see how I am misrepresenting your point, as you never posted anything which judges a country's university system as a whole.
Randorama wrote:...and you want to get good workers with just good high schools, by chance? In these days? Etc. Etc.
Again, if you want to argue that Japan is lacking productivity or some similar metric that would indicate there workers aren't skilled enough, be my guest. But I don't think the argument is an easy one to make here.
GaijinPunch wrote:It's a true one though. I can only speak for the Japanese side (not the rest of Asia) but, something goes awry somewhere at the Junior High level. I have not studied extensively on the subject, but being a father I know a bit about it. Around Junior High, when western models start to provoke thought, Japan's system kicks memorization into high gear (no doubt to help aid in those useless entrance exams they're so famous for).
Maybe some educational systems are better at provoking thought than others, but your description certainly wasn't my experience in school(Randorama's emphasis on Finland may be particularly relevant here, as they are often credited with having a more progressive education system). In any case I wouldn't dare argue that Japan's(much less South Korea which is a nightmare I'm glad I've never had to experience as a kid) education systems aren't highly lacking in the area you emphasized. The education systems would just be the start too as you will find the problems rancor describes, like the general de-emphasis of the individual through all levels of society there. However I do not think that necessarily justifies simply dismissing superior scores in mathematics for example. Lower standards for math performance is a bad thing, let's be clear about that. Certainly you can argue that superior results there are to a large extent a result of blanket memorization, but you can always make that argument for any country. If some countries like say Finland manage to produce both better results in things like math or reading while also stimulating creativity that's fantastic. But I think in all likelihood that has a greater impact on the measures of things like happiness(it certainly does stongly with South Korea where the suicide rate is often linked with the ridiculous education expectations) measures than it does on economics or the country's ability to innovate, compete, or whatever.
GaijinPunch wrote:There are a couple possible lessons to take from Japan's experience. On the one hand, you could perhaps argue that it shows that test-oriented education does not actually promote global competitiveness; that Japan's focus on testing and rigid connections between school, home and family, stifled creativity and created an insufficiently flexible economy. This is the critique that University of Oregon Professor Yong Zhao makes of our emphasis on testing in the U.S. From his perspective, the goal of global competitiveness is the right goal, but to get there we need education that focuses on creativity and innovation rather than test-taking.
I don't disagree with Yong Zhao that teaching for the test is a bad thing, but the attempt made by that person to link this with Japan's supposedly inflexible economy and lack of competitiveness is worthless. The bursting bubble Japan suffered from was a result of high amounts of speculation, and the subsequent stagnation has been a result of inadequate stimulus programs combined with other financial crises around the world(notably the Asian crisis of the 90s and the 2008 crisis) both of which brought growth down as it was picking up. It had absolutely nothing to do with Japan's education system or for that matter the behavior of the majority of the Japanese population, it had to do with a tiny amount of investors, many of which weren't even Japanese. This pattern has been repeated over and over including causing the Asian crisis and has zero to do with things like the education system or a nation's creativity(ha! we could use less, not more "financial innovation" for example).
GaijinPunch wrote:If all of these Asian nations are kicking the fuck out of the world on testing, why is Silicon Valley the largest hotbed of creative production?
That's a good question which I can give a serious answer to if you want. Reason number 1 is largely historical, namely, in the WW2 and Cold War era(not a coincidence that the U.S. was lagging behind Europe in terms of new innovations and the like until the World Wars and especially after the second one), the United States by way of military funding from the Pentagon into R&D and other guided lending and the like and as a result created much of the technology we have today(largely in places like MIT). Much of the technology, like the internet, computers, aviation, were all created in this way. Much of the rest was done in monopolies like Bell Labs which themselves received massive amounts of government funding. The transistor for example was created in this way, as there were no companies around much less consumers to purchase transistors, and the reason the likes of Bell Labs could afford to produce such things which no one would buy is that government purchased these items and provided massive subsidies. This historical backdrop produced much of the stuff that later companies would turn into consumer products decades later. Incidentally even those companies like Google and the like were helped by funding from government programs. So part of the answer to your question is money, quite simply(this is a point that can be applied more generally about creative societies throughout history, it's not just about the U.S.). This is an area however in recent years, in particular starting in the 1980s where the U.S. dominance is slowly declining.
The second reason concerns why Japan for example does not produce as many big time innovative products as American companies. The reason is the following: They do not have to. The East Asian countries generally speaking have been perfectly happy to copy ideas that came from the U.S. and elsewhere(or you can look at S. Korea which in many cases gave Japan the same treatment it gave the U.S.) and use them to create their own products(whether these are actual consumer products or are components for outside producers to purchase), which they protect heavily and eventually develop their own cheaper alternatives. Instead Japan's innovations are in things like production processes(which I know I mentioned in the case of vehicle manufacturers), which are also important for actually getting products out into the world. I believe I even asked a similar question in a post a while back, which asked why is it that production lines for the electronics industry are in Asia? It's certainly not because of any natural resource reason. Nor does the "cheap labor" argument stand up when there is much cheaper labor present just about anywhere else in Asia. The answer is that they're simply better at high-end production of electronics.
