US school students don’t count in international class | Published: Wednesday, 30 May, 2007, 08:26 AM Doha Time
PARIS: School students in the US think they are just great at mathematics: but by the age of 14 they are two years behind the level in other industrialised countries and overall come 24th in a class of 29.
...
In fact, the OECD says, US school students “rank 24th out of 29 OECD countries in mathematics performance.”
...
The “astonishing self confidence” expressed by US school students “also suggests standards are lax,” the report said. “Contrary to widespread hopes that promotion of self-esteem and confidence will encourage learning, grade inflation seems to lower performance...”
“In short, one reason why US students perform worse than their international counterparts seems to be that they are not being challenged.” Another explanation was that in the US there was no school-leaving exam based on a set curriculum.
...
A generation ago, the US had the highest rate of higher education in the OECD area, today it ranks eighth even though in 2003 it spent 2.9% of gross domestic product in this field, about twice the OECD average.
Spending per student on higher education was $19,500 (14,100 euros) compared with an OECD average of $7,800. ...
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
salespeople, waiters, attorneys, doctors, and managers. But how could we have ever built a superpower country on those professions alone?
America Is Preparing Kids For The Future As Servants Published 12/21/06 by Thomas Heffner
In the 1950's 30% of US employees were in manufacturing - almost 1 in 3 jobs. This country was a relative manufacturing super power, we were the world's richest and most productive country. In 1994 approximately 1 in 8 jobs were in manufacturing. In 2014 if the US government (Bureau of Labor Statistics) projections are accurate that figure will have slipped to 1 in 12 jobs.
The government is telling us in black and white that the policies they are enacting will decrease both absolute and relative manufacturing employment to levels below that of the 1950's - over 2 million below.
...
From 1994-2004, manufacturing was the second fastest job-losing sector in our economy (second only to agricultural employment). From 2004-2014, the government predicts that most of the employment growth will come from retail, health care, leisure and hospitality, government jobs, and “professional and business services.”
This country needs salespeople, waiters, attorneys, doctors, and managers. But how could we have ever built a superpower country on those professions alone?
Many say that we are shipping jobs overseas because they are too low-paying or too rudimentary. Anyone who has worked in factory operating a million-dollar piece of equipment can tell you the satisfying difference from being forced to work in a restaurant as a waiter because of lack of alternatives. ...
...
Some other countries, like Japan, pay wages as high as or higher than America because their manufacturing is capital and knowledge intensive and requires fewer workers per unit of output. In addition, other countries like China that pay wages as low as 1/10 of ours, also does not have the same cost of living as the US. Their goods cost a fraction of what they cost here in America; therefore it is not possible to compare the wages on an absolute basis.
Many people also say education is the key. They say that not enough Americans are being trained for engineering, science, or production occupations. There is no point in educating people when there are no jobs – when these industries are being systematically and predatorily destroyed by foreign subsidized competition producing and operating both externally and here in this country through insourcing.
We are living in a fool’s paradise, being propped up by foreign loans to our government and foreign subsidized consumption of our incredulous trade deficits which is approaching $800 billion ($1.6 million per minute) this year alone..
In the 1950's 30% of US employees were in manufacturing - almost 1 in 3 jobs. This country was a relative manufacturing super power, we were the world's richest and most productive country. In 1994 approximately 1 in 8 jobs were in manufacturing. In 2014 if the US government (Bureau of Labor Statistics) projections are accurate that figure will have slipped to 1 in 12 jobs.
The government is telling us in black and white that the policies they are enacting will decrease both absolute and relative manufacturing employment to levels below that of the 1950's - over 2 million below.
...
From 1994-2004, manufacturing was the second fastest job-losing sector in our economy (second only to agricultural employment). From 2004-2014, the government predicts that most of the employment growth will come from retail, health care, leisure and hospitality, government jobs, and “professional and business services.”
This country needs salespeople, waiters, attorneys, doctors, and managers. But how could we have ever built a superpower country on those professions alone?
Many say that we are shipping jobs overseas because they are too low-paying or too rudimentary. Anyone who has worked in factory operating a million-dollar piece of equipment can tell you the satisfying difference from being forced to work in a restaurant as a waiter because of lack of alternatives. ...
...
Some other countries, like Japan, pay wages as high as or higher than America because their manufacturing is capital and knowledge intensive and requires fewer workers per unit of output. In addition, other countries like China that pay wages as low as 1/10 of ours, also does not have the same cost of living as the US. Their goods cost a fraction of what they cost here in America; therefore it is not possible to compare the wages on an absolute basis.
Many people also say education is the key. They say that not enough Americans are being trained for engineering, science, or production occupations. There is no point in educating people when there are no jobs – when these industries are being systematically and predatorily destroyed by foreign subsidized competition producing and operating both externally and here in this country through insourcing.
We are living in a fool’s paradise, being propped up by foreign loans to our government and foreign subsidized consumption of our incredulous trade deficits which is approaching $800 billion ($1.6 million per minute) this year alone..
Monday, May 14, 2007
there is a very real issue as to whether George Bush directly caused the doubling of gas prices in America.
The subtle, important differences of having Democrats in power | by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/14/2007 11:25:00 AM ET
Note the AP headline: "Democrats prod automakers on mileage"
Let me remind you of how quickly things have gone to hell. Gas prices averaged $1.60 a gallon in February 2003. Then Bush went to war in Iraq one month later, and prices have soared ever since. So there is a very real issue as to whether George Bush directly caused the doubling of gas prices in America. You can't blame September 11 for the increase beyond $1.60 - the $1.60 price was a good year and a half after September 11. And four months before September 11, gas prices were averaging $1.70 a gallon. And actually, gas prices fell in the months following September 11 - for example, gas prices averaged $1.24 a gallon six weeks after September 11. Thus, September 11 had no effect whatsoever on long-term (or even medium-term) gas prices.
...
Note the AP headline: "Democrats prod automakers on mileage"
Let me remind you of how quickly things have gone to hell. Gas prices averaged $1.60 a gallon in February 2003. Then Bush went to war in Iraq one month later, and prices have soared ever since. So there is a very real issue as to whether George Bush directly caused the doubling of gas prices in America. You can't blame September 11 for the increase beyond $1.60 - the $1.60 price was a good year and a half after September 11. And four months before September 11, gas prices were averaging $1.70 a gallon. And actually, gas prices fell in the months following September 11 - for example, gas prices averaged $1.24 a gallon six weeks after September 11. Thus, September 11 had no effect whatsoever on long-term (or even medium-term) gas prices.
...
37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold ... increased by five million over the past six years [Bush era]
The Millions Left Out | By Bob Herbert | The New York Times | Saturday 12 May 2007
The United States may be the richest country in the world, but there are many millions - tens of millions - who are not sharing in that prosperity.
According to the most recent government figures, 37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold, which is $19,971 a year for a family of four. That's one out of every eight Americans, and many of them are children.
More than 90 million Americans, close to a third of the entire population, are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line. In my book, they're poor.
We don't see poor people on television or in the advertising that surrounds us like a second atmosphere. We don't pay much attention to the millions of men and women who are changing bedpans, or flipping burgers for the minimum wage, or vacuuming the halls of office buildings at all hours of the night. But they're there, working hard and getting very little in return.
The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation's income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent. ...
...
Peter Edelman, a Georgetown law professor who was a co-chairman of the task force, said, "An astonishing number of people are working as hard as they possibly can but are still in poverty or have incomes that are not much above the poverty line."
...
A crucial component to raising workers out of poverty would be an all-out effort to ensure that workers are allowed to form unions and bargain collectively. As the task force noted, "Among workers in similar jobs, unionized workers have higher pay, higher rates of health coverage, and better benefits than do nonunionized workers."
In a recent interview about poverty, former Senator John Edwards told me: "Organizing is so important. We have 50 million service economy jobs and we'll probably have 10 or 15 million more over the next decade. If those jobs are union jobs, they'll be middle-class families. If not, they're more likely to live in poverty. It's that strong." ...
The United States may be the richest country in the world, but there are many millions - tens of millions - who are not sharing in that prosperity.
According to the most recent government figures, 37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold, which is $19,971 a year for a family of four. That's one out of every eight Americans, and many of them are children.
More than 90 million Americans, close to a third of the entire population, are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line. In my book, they're poor.
We don't see poor people on television or in the advertising that surrounds us like a second atmosphere. We don't pay much attention to the millions of men and women who are changing bedpans, or flipping burgers for the minimum wage, or vacuuming the halls of office buildings at all hours of the night. But they're there, working hard and getting very little in return.
The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation's income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent. ...
...
Peter Edelman, a Georgetown law professor who was a co-chairman of the task force, said, "An astonishing number of people are working as hard as they possibly can but are still in poverty or have incomes that are not much above the poverty line."
...
A crucial component to raising workers out of poverty would be an all-out effort to ensure that workers are allowed to form unions and bargain collectively. As the task force noted, "Among workers in similar jobs, unionized workers have higher pay, higher rates of health coverage, and better benefits than do nonunionized workers."
In a recent interview about poverty, former Senator John Edwards told me: "Organizing is so important. We have 50 million service economy jobs and we'll probably have 10 or 15 million more over the next decade. If those jobs are union jobs, they'll be middle-class families. If not, they're more likely to live in poverty. It's that strong." ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)