20 Comments Add your own

• 1. Chris Carr  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am

  [Same comment that I made to Jeff's post above.]

  The answer to many of these questions really depends how one defines loaded terms such as “innovation” and “creativity”. If defined as people with discretionary time on their hands to come up with cool ideas being able to tap into VC capital (or a bank credit line or angel investors) quickly to start the next Google and world’s leading company, then the answer is very different than if one frames the question along the lines of, “what country, with 20 percent of the world’s population and only 6 percent of its arable land, has ‘innovated’ its way into the modern era just 25 years?; then you get two vastly different answers.

  Here is a good post by the This is China blog, with some good insight from the comment thread, for further reading: Are We Innovative Yet? The China Challenge.

  The This is China blogger seems to have hit the mark in terms of identifying the things that help hold down one definition of “innovation”, in China, but if so, China’s increased wealth will in time, in my view, change things like IP protection, quality of education at all levels, parenting methods and the like and things that are held in esteem, etc. Keep in mind that this cycle is nothing terribly new. This same economic cycle of development already happened in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

  As an aside but related note, I recently heard Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun speak and he was excellent. He generally pulls no punches. He put an interesting twist to the “merits of online education debate” that relates to some of the issues that Jeff and Shasta raise in their posts. He said education should be much more open source, as Sun has been doing with its software (and which, by the way, Microsoft said it would start to do with part of its source code this week!).

  He took a stats course, online, at Harvard a long time ago. He is a Harvard undergrad and Stanford MBA. They guy is not a dummy. He completed his stats course at Harvard in 48 hours (he stayed up for two days straight doing it). He got one of the few As awarded in the course.

  He said, in effect (I am paraphrasing here), “Harvard failed students like me. If it had allowed me to take more of my Harvard coursework like I took my stats class, I could have got going on life and finished Harvard in a year, instead of 4, and then I could have moved on and would not have been so far behind in trying to catch up with the likes of Gates/Microsoft and Ellison/Oracle”.

  The remainder of his message?

  He took all of us in the audience to task (the audience was all academics) by in effect saying (again, I am paraphrasing), “you have all meant well to create a system that ‘leaves no child behind’ in how you build your institutions and educational systems and teach people, but in your attempt to leave no child behind, you have set up obstacles to change and moving society moving forward and have forgotten the many, many, many folks like me who you were holding back because of the traditional way you teach students and capture them, what else you required me to do that may not be value added, etc. Please stop doing this and get your crap together.”

  The audience was dead silent. We had collectively been busted.

  One way he suggested we might do this is to make much more education open source, and online where people are given feedback immediately how they are doing, they can learn at their own pace (fast like him or slow if they choose, etc.), they take greater responsibility for their own learning, in doing so you can pull from quality resources around the world, etc.

  I am sure that most folks at Cal Poly would love McNealy and what he was suggesting.

  And hey, don’t shoot me, the messenger …

• 2. Simeon Trieu  |  February 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am

  China has their own share of problems in education, just like the US. I wouldn’t generalize any particular country on the quality of the students. I know many students in the US who work hard (if not harder) than Chinese students (or Japanese students, German students, etc.). We just have to measure an individual’s performance and go from there. The truth of the matter is that it’s not a society’s fault that a student does poorly. If you love learning, then it will come out naturally, no matter where you are. As long as you have books (or the internet and eBooks these days..) and a good mentor, you can always achieve your dreams. Here is an inspiring video lecture delivered by Dr. Randy Pausch, if you haven’t heard it already. The man has already passed on, but at the time, he was suffering from pancreatic cancer with only 3 months left to live. Instead of talking about suffering or religiosity, he talked about achieving your childhood dreams. Very inspiring. If there’s anything you can do to well in school, it was said in this lecture.

• 3. Nick Miura  |  February 27th, 2008 at 8:55 am

  Man, where to start. The future of education is such a loaded issue. First, it’s hard to define what a good education is, or even what the point of education is. I’ve seen answers such as you need a good education to get a good job, or you need to go to school so you can do better than your parents. Regardless of why you go to school, the main theme is improvement on a personal level. School then, should be an area where one can improve themselves. By this logic, better schools should provide students access to better improvement opportunities.

  I think Dr. Carr hit the nail on the head when he quoted that the system in the U.S., in its attempts to leave no child left behind, inhibits self improvement. What’s worse, is the system does not motivated student to learn for themselves - to learn for learning’s sake. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any school, anywhere in the world has it exactly right. What is different then, is the culture of learning. As a culture, the United States has a terrible history of education - immigrants came to America not to get educated, but to get rich. Education is now a means to an end. Compare this with Hindu India or Confucian Asia, which both put premiums on learning and improvement since before common era.

  So here’s where I stand. I think American has the best secondary education system in the world - because the system is based on free market economics - both students and professors can choose what college is best for their individual needs and will pay(sacrifice) to attend. This does not necessarily mean the best individual schools, as many all over the world are very good, but the best overall system. Elementary education on the other hand, relies more on the culture than individual schools. The U.S. does not have a free market system and thus it will never be a leader because there will be too many hurdles and too much bureaucracy, and we as a culture don’t care enough to make a change. I’m not sure who will be the next leader; however, I think it will be in a culture that puts a premium on education, and keeps education local instead of national. Keeping education local lets people who can make the best decisions have the power to make change.

• 4. Simone Michel  |  February 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  I have to agree with Nick on the point of secondary education. I think the USA has a very good secondary education system. Where we are still a step behind from my point of view is on the elementary and high school level. After a certain age children develop their own ways of learning and also their own paces. I think if you would split up each grade into different levels, say after 6th grade, you would be able to promote the brighter and faster learning kids while children that need more time are in a lower level. Education would be much more tailored to a specific learning type and the brighter kids could benefit from extra work. I know many people look at this kind of system as unethical because you seperate the children and label them as brighter and not but I look at it from an educational point of view. I also really like what Europeans are doing. After High School the majority of young adults start apprenticeships instead of college and go to school 1-2 days a week and work on their job the rest of the week. This way people that prefer practical work and on the job training are more motivated and also earn some money besides their education. They are also more likely to get a good job later on since they already bring experience with them. As we all know, it’s all about the customer and we want to make him happy!

• 5. Andrew Steen  |  March 17th, 2008 at 10:16 am

  “Ordinary village schools were uninspiring places, with teachers who lacked motivation and interest.” This quote from the video pretty much sums up my experience from forth grade on. Most teachers are only there to satisfy a power trip. And a stack of dittos is not inspiring. Nor is a history book with page after page of “important dates.” When I am required to read something like that I just laugh and throw it away. Because if the school can’t put in the effort to find an inspiring and insightful book, then I’m not going to put in my time to read it.
  I was very rarely required to critically think about anything until college, and even there, I felt unmotivated. Fact: I accomplished 95% of my learning outside of the classroom, and only showed up to class because of participation points. So in conclusion, I am very, very, very motivated to learn about everything under the sun, but I am not motivated to waste my time learning in an uninspiring and inefficient way.

• 6. Andrew Steen  |  March 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am

  There are so many learning resources available to students in America, that of course a boring classroom with an unmotivated teacher is not going to be as appreciated as in someplace without the outside sources which we have at our fingertips.

• 7. David Dougherty  |  March 21st, 2008 at 11:30 am

  I agree that it is difficult to generalize an entire country’s education system. If China and Japan are anything like the United States, then the quality of education really varies by location. I went to a public high school that outperformed many private ones, but I cannot say this is the case everywhere. I think that the quality of education is really based on two main factors, the student’s attitude, and the ability of teachers to meet the needs of their students.

  The attitude of education varies vastly from student to student. There are a lot of American students today that are just plain lazy, and want everything to be given to them on a plate (the little emperors). I think these students represent a vast majority of the American education system. These kids have successful parents and think they can just ride their success for the rest of their lives. In contrast, I went to school with some of the hardest working kids I have seen. These students really saw the value in an education and wanted to do everything they could to benefit from what they were given. This attitude is much more likely to result in long term success.

  Another key point in education is the ability of a teacher to meet the needs of the student. When I was younger, I got in a lot of trouble in school. I would be reprimanded for disrupting other students and causing a disturbance, yet still got straight A’s. I can attribute this to the “no student left behind” model. The teachers were dumbing down the curriculum to make sure no student felt inferior, but in turn made it so students who “got it” resort to other things with their new founded amount of free time. Had the teacher been giving the students who excel extra work, everyone could have benefited more (and I would have pissed off a lot less teachers). I think this model should be done away with. Teachers should move at a face pace in class, and then give those who can’t keep up the opportunity to meet outside of class for extra help. We are never going to progress in education if we cant set the bar high enough to compete.

• 8. Alex Thornton  |  December 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm

  I have to disagree with Nick on the competitiveness of “elementary education.” There are many viable alternatives to a public education. I myself went to a religious school in first grade, where I learned discipline, and a private school in second grade. In addition, home schooling can give personalized one-on-one tutoring. Public education is merely an additional option in the free market education system.

• 9. Lindsay Leaver  |  January 10th, 2010 at 4:35 pm

  Education and the future of it is a great debate to have. There are so many options and so many directions to go.

  Why hasn’t the issue of social education and things you learn at school other than in the classroom addressed here? McNealy says he could have gotten out of Harvard in a year if he could just take his classes in 48 hours from the privacy of his home. But what about the other stuff he learned in his four years there? Classroom learning is the focus of our educational system, but it is not the only factor. If he were to jet through Harvard in a year, he would have missed the social aspect of college,as well as time-management, accountability, and human interaction. Learning how to live a balanced, healthy life is a big part of college. Being held accountable for showing up at class everyday, balancing a social life with an academic life, and learning how to operate in team situations are all invaluable lessons.

  Changing gears here, I think the idea of a mandatory year of service in high school is something that should be discussed more seriously. It would teach critical thinking, problem-solving, and give actual experience to teenagers.

• 10. Phil Hamer  |  February 11th, 2010 at 12:26 am

  I have to agree with Lindsay that the social aspects of education are very important, especially in high school and elementary school. Education should teach more than math. That is why it saddens me that so many programs like music, wood shop, art, and even some sports are being scrapped. These are programs that create more well-rounded and involved university students and members of a community.

  Many of the extracurricular activities that I was involved in during high school have developed into very important parts of my life. Students who are completely focused on the academic part are missing out and given a disadvantage, especially when they go out into the job market.

  When I taught English at one of the top high schools in Shanghai. I was amazed at how smart many of the students were and their ability to work under intense pressure, but I was even more amazed at how socially awkward and shy the majority of them were. They were 18 years old and would refuse to sit next to someone of the opposite sex! They had little life experience, little social life, and absolutely could not work in teams. This could have been due to the one child policy, but I think it was also due to the fact that there were very few extracurricular activities in school and excessive hours in class (7 am - 6 pm), homework, study, and testing that created a social imbalance.

• 11. Danielle Steussy  |  February 17th, 2010 at 4:14 pm

  I agree with Phil and Lindsay that the social aspect of education is much more emphasized in the United States than it is in other parts of the world. I loved taking music and art and being in after-school sports teams from elementary school on through high school. I balanced that with challenging math and science classes and started learning Spanish from a young age. Although I can’t compare my math and science skills to those of students in Japan, my social skills have highly benefited from my exposure to variety of subjects and I’m, plain and simple, very happy with my education.

  Phil made an incredibly good observation in saying how sad it is that these extracurriculars are being scrapped from the elementary through high school system. Already in my school district from back home, music has been cancelled from fifth grade, sports and art taken away from middle school, and several AP classes including Spanish and French pulled from class offerings. To see these activities that I believe made my education so superior are being taken away is devastating. And the most pathetic part of all is that even with the shift in focus, the United States is still so far behind in math and science.

  Perhaps we should look at what differentiates the United States education from the rest of the world and capitalize on that rather than trying to compete with other countries in the areas they excel in.

  Going back to the initial question of who will be the next leader in education, I think that it certainly won’t be the United States if curriculum continues to move further away from our core competency of creativity and social-driven education. As I said before, if we capitalize on each of our differences, each country could really lead in different areas and produce a much more dynamic global work force.

• 12. Jay Ponto  |  February 19th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

  The social aspect of school is often just as important as the scholastic portion. I don’t remember half of the things I learned in my AP US history class in high school, and what I remember has not dramatically affected my life. However, the social lessons I learned in high school have dramatically affected my social conduct, and were more or equally valuable as any subject I’ve ever studied.

  My parents understood this, and made the decision to enroll me in private schools when I was younger because they felt this would yield a more positive impact on my social interactions and behavior, even though motivated students could achieve an equally good or better education at the nearby public schools. Whether I received a better social education is subjective and irrelevant at the moment. The point is, my parents were most concerned about the social aspect when deciding where they would send me to school.

  Going off of what Phil wrote, and the blog post above, it seems that many families in Asia value the pure scholastic education their students receive, while neglecting the social education that contributes to becoming a well-rounded individual.

  When I was little, I was like the American students described above. I would say in a glum voice, “I don’t feel like going to my school.” To this, my father would respond, “You should be glad that you’re lucky enough to go to school.” I did not appreciate it then. However, the longer I remain in school, I appreciate my education more and more because it becomes increasingly apparent to me that few people have such an opportunity that I still take for granted.

• 13. William Ary  |  February 21st, 2010 at 8:54 pm

  I think the US school system produces good student precisely because it has the luxury of giving students the option to take classes in subjects that will directly add to their capacity to do work. This seems like a waste but I think it is a more holistic approach to learning, allowing students to use more of their minds. The result is that American kids will have a more flexible education that will serve them well in more situations and allow them to adapt creatively to uncertainty.

  On the flip side, the fact is that people do take their education for granted. I am certainly one person who had trouble focusing on classes from time to time. I think that the reason this does not happen in India is because Indian children are living hand to mouth- anything that will help them make ends meet is critical to devote their best efforts to. In the USA, people are more or less guaranteed to have basic needs met, so there is simply less reason to focus. I also think it is a result of the inflexible way classes are taught. I am always frustrated by my limited freedom to learn what I want to know the way I want in the structured education format that predominates here.

• 14. Kirk Story  |  March 3rd, 2010 at 9:35 pm

  Education, great. Glad to be discussing a critical topic that’s often underestimated. It is easy to underestimate when half of our nation feels we are already wasting too much money on ‘gettin’ them learnins on,’ but in my mind- nothing holds greater implications for our global future than education. Finland and the Netherlands rank as the nations who score highest in a composite of various metrics gauging higher education standards. This matrix is reduced to two categories, accessibility and affordability. I encourage all to check out the online pdf. analyzing this topic: http://dev.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.educationalpolicy.org%2Fpdf%2FGlobal2005.pdf . Per this Education Commission website, “First of all, they (the rankings) tell us that Finland and the Netherlands should be models for the international community when it comes to accessibility and affordability. Both have large student bodies, high attainment rates, extensive grant programs, and student bodies that are reasonably reflective of broader society. These countries are the undisputed success stories of this survey.” Interestingly, Finland and the Netherlands finance their affordable education through grants with “$0.00” in tax expenditures.

  The US scored 13th out of 16 nations in the affordability rankings. The US scored 14th in “Education Cost,” 13th in “total living cost,” and 12th in net costs after tax expenditures. The US financed most of its higher education costs through out of pocket expenses ($7057), loans ($4864), grants ($4025), and tax expenditures ($639). Surprisingly, the US scored 4th place in accessibility.

  In related discussion, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) performed a study measuring the aptitude of 265,000 15-year-olds worldwide. See the site: http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm . Finland scored #1 in reading literacy, Japan scored #1 in mathematical literacy, and Korea scored #1 in scientific literacy. Per the site’s comments OECD rankings for the US, “‘We’re No. . . . Ah, ‘Bout Average, Dude, . . . Whatever.’ U.S. students finished 15th in reading, 19th in math and 14th in science - and in a study that only ranked 31 nations.” US Secretary of Education Rod Paige responded to the rankings by stating, “We see on the reading assessment that we have more kids scoring at the highest level than many participating countries, but we also see that we have more kids at the lowest level than some of the countries.” Wait; was that a grammatically correct statement?

• 15. Michael Minasian  |  March 10th, 2010 at 11:29 am

  It seems that India has been making gains in education recently. I submitted an interesting blog post about business students in India, America, and abroad.

  http://calpolymbatrip.com/2010/india/where-are-all-the-indian-business-students-going/

  Perhaps in the last year or two, other factors are being considered, such as cost, or “bang for the buck.” Top flight educational institutions will always have demand, even if it is not for the masses. I would rather have a variety of institutions which can serve people at all levels.

• 16. Chase Janvrin  |  March 10th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

  These are great questions. Who ever can sustain a long term advantage of their education system will probably eventually become the leading economic power. This reminds me of the debate we had in Accounting this morning. While a college education is probably the primary step in opening doors to opportunities for one’s future, we are a privileged few that have that opportunity so easily accessible. I feel the same way Shasta does, going to school as a default is not, can not, be nearly as valuable as going with a passionate desire to learn. America will be at an insurmountable disadvantage if we continue to just go through the motions as India fills the ranks with the motivated and the educated. That’s what used to make America special. Times they are a changin…

• 17. Jordan Wente  |  March 18th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

  It is scary to think in the future the US might not be the leader in education. However, I think that American education will always uphold a certain appeal that will allow it to maintain a competitive advantage. It would be smart for the US to focus on enhancing its education system so American education does not become obsolete. It would be ideal for the US to use a portion of the money spent on military to nurture the minds of young American children. I think the country should be looking at the bigger picture and investing heavily in education but more importantly early education. Like Indian Schools, we should be teaching more at a younger age. Preparing the younger generations to reap the benefits of the higher education and to actually value the opportunity.

  Indian children want to go to school because it is a privilege; it’s a step toward a brighter future. Many of us here in the US are so focused on other aspects of our lives we forget the great benefits of education. It turns into a race to the end rather than a valuable learning experience. The mentality that all you need is that piece of paper to be successful is killing the motivation to try hard. I agree many people in the US take these opportunities for granted but I also know quite a few people who want to be in school, not because they have to. As we progress into the future and lose opportunities to foreign students and foreign schools we might value educational opportunities a little more and thus try harder.

• 18. Vitus Holzner  |  March 19th, 2010 at 10:17 am

  I couldn’t disagree more with McNealy. Even though conveying knowledge is an important part of school it is only one part of schools responsibilities. I think at equally important is to teach children social skills. For that exact reason I am not a big fan of home schooling. I think to development into a functioning member of society it is important for a child to interact with a multitude of different people and different viewpoints. How can someone grow to be a tolerant and understanding person if all he/she was exposed to during his childhood were the views of his/her parents.
  To come back to McNealy’s statement I am surprised how little he seems to value what in my opinion is really important in an MBA program. Why did he choose Harvard? Maybe he should have gotten his degree thru online classes at the University of Phoenix.

• 19. Matthew Perez  |  March 19th, 2010 at 10:25 am

  I agree with Jordan in respect to the paper becoming the ultimate goal of most students. Having attended the University of California Berkeley, considered the best public institution in the world, I can say the feelings are no different. At Berkeley, though, I think these feelings stem an obsession with the grade and not the knowledge gained. That is part of the reason why I left Berkeley. I found myself overly consumed with analyzing the teacher to see how they graded, what they would likely put on their tests, and who I could utilize to ensure my success with assignments and tests. It always felt like a race to see what competitive advantage I could gain over my fellow classmates. Because of this environment, much of the joy I used to derive from my engineering classes disappeared.

  Although not perfect, I think Indian schools have some aspects that should be incorporated into our education system. Spending more time in class teaching will improve students’ mastery of the material. I think if we do this, along with provide a more relaxed atmosphere, will go a long way in terms of improving our education system.

• 20. Jeff  |  March 19th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

  What type of education is worth more? Are schools in different countries teaching the same things? Are they focusing on the same topics?

  From what I’ve read about the strengths of US education is that it teaches a person to think. I don’t know if that’s true, but when writing my blog on outsourcing, the Indian companies were sending work to the US for multiple reasons, one of which they said that the programming could be done faster and more efficiently. They explained that for rote programming where creativity wasn’t needed, is where Indian programmers excelled.

  Was this because of creativity being “taught” in the US, or was it because when software has been designed and you know the exact task before you, it’s just cheaper to do it in India.

  I think for the US to maintain it’s economic edge, we do need to focus on schools. We have been ignoring them for too long.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

The posts, comments and/or views expressed on this trip blog, whether by a Cal Poly student or faculty or an outside guest to the blog, do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of Cal Poly, the Orfalea College of Business (OCOB), any of the OCOB's graduate programs and/or other students who participate in the trip.