Gen ed problems and future outlook

[spork]

In the USA, K-12 education is financed by taxpayers and is completely non-selective. Only a portion of higher education, meaning post-secondary, is financed by taxpayers. For many public universities, state legislative appropriations provide less than 10% of the budget. Federal aid to students, in the form of grants and subsidized interest rates on loans, also accounts for a small portion of higher education financing. This 2015 report has some numbers. Taxpayer support of public higher education has probably decreased further since then.

Why should taxpayers be paying to staff and deliver a World History 101 course that in many cases is not the same quality of what is now available for free?

[marshwiggle]

American education differs from a lot of western countries, not just Europe. The system in Canada is much closer to other countries than the US. One of the cultural peculiarities of the US is a very "complicated" view of government. For the country that speaks of "government for the people, by the people", the level of distrust of government is very high. This shows up in the fear of government regulation, and of government funding. In many other countries, there is a general acceptance of the fact that there are many things that are a common good, and that paying higher taxes in order to have them is a reasonable compromise. In the US, there's more acceptance of a lower "universal" (i.e. government-funded) standard, since the more unregulated elite market allows people who can afford it to get something much better. (The principle of not having to pay for someone else getting more than they need seems to be a reasonable payoff for having to spend more oneself to get what one wants.)

My sense is that the k-12 education system in many countries is far more uniform than in the US, and not surprisingly, it is better funded. Having a higher minimum standard for graduates is viewed as worth the cost.

At the post-secondary level outside the US, the level of government funding is higher, but there is not the same distinction between "elites" and other places. (I stand to be corrected by people from outside the US, but individual programs stand out more than  institutions. So "SomeU" and "OtherU" may both have both Basketweaving and Spoonbending programs, but Basketweaving at "SomeU" is better than at "OtherU" while Spoonbending is better at "OtherU" than at "SomeU". Part of what this means is that there's not such a big deal about getting into "SomeU" in general, because that may be easy in some programs but not in others.) This contrasts with the idea in the US of "declaring a major" after some amount of time at an institution. If I understand it correctly, that means that admission is non-program specific until graduate school.

Which brings me to the last point. In other countries, the idea is that students have to figure out what they intend to do before applying for PSE. In the US, it is assumed that students aren't sufficiently mature to make that determination.

Everyone can now line up to agree, disagree, make corrections, etc.

[spork]

American education differs from a lot of western countries, not just Europe. The system in Canada is much closer to other countries than the US. One of the cultural peculiarities of the US is a very "complicated" view of government. For the country that speaks of "government for the people, by the people", the level of distrust of government is very high. This shows up in the fear of government regulation, and of government funding. In many other countries, there is a general acceptance of the fact that there are many things that are a common good, and that paying higher taxes in order to have them is a reasonable compromise. In the US, there's more acceptance of a lower "universal" (i.e. government-funded) standard, since the more unregulated elite market allows people who can afford it to get something much better. (The principle of not having to pay for someone else getting more than they need seems to be a reasonable payoff for having to spend more oneself to get what one wants.)

My sense is that the k-12 education system in many countries is far more uniform than in the US, and not surprisingly, it is better funded. Having a higher minimum standard for graduates is viewed as worth the cost.

At the post-secondary level outside the US, the level of government funding is higher, but there is not the same distinction between "elites" and other places. (I stand to be corrected by people from outside the US, but individual programs stand out more than  institutions. So "SomeU" and "OtherU" may both have both Basketweaving and Spoonbending programs, but Basketweaving at "SomeU" is better than at "OtherU" while Spoonbending is better at "OtherU" than at "SomeU". Part of what this means is that there's not such a big deal about getting into "SomeU" in general, because that may be easy in some programs but not in others.) This contrasts with the idea in the US of "declaring a major" after some amount of time at an institution. If I understand it correctly, that means that admission is non-program specific until graduate school.

Which brings me to the last point. In other countries, the idea is that students have to figure out what they intend to do before applying for PSE. In the US, it is assumed that students aren't sufficiently mature to make that determination.

Everyone can now line up to agree, disagree, make corrections, etc.

Yes. There is no national K-12 curriculum in the USA, whereas in France, for example, there is. So particular school districts in Mississippi are free to give high school diplomas to children with 5th grade-level reading skills, whereas particular school districts in Massachusetts choose not to. (I'm just picking states that tend to be at opposite ends of the K-12 education spectrum; I'm not saying there are no good K-12 districts in Mississippi or that all districts in Massachusetts are excellent).

I've been to a lot of countries where admission to baccalaureate education occurs through specific programs of the university, not by the university as a whole. In other words, you apply to the Faculty of Medicine or Faculty of English, not to the University of Zanzibar. In many cases, like Myanmar, your score on a national test determines whether you can be admitted to a particular university-level program. I.e., if your score is in the top five percent, then maybe you have the chance of medical or engineering training. Lower than that, you're not even eligible to attend. 

[Wahoo Redux]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

But where does that leave us?

What are we supposed to do now?

[Ruralguy]

I'll pose this question:

Say you have *zero* control over national K-12 or even college curricula, but...

Say you had at your institution a modest set of typical college departments (I won't specify all, you can just define for yourself what you think might be typical).

What curriculum would you create?  There's no "correct" answer. At least, I'm not personally looking for anything in particular.

Would you have any "core" or gen ed requirements?  Any electives?

Does this curriculum look like what you have at your school?

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

My sense is that the k-12 education system in many countries is far more uniform than in the US, and not surprisingly, it is better funded. Having a higher minimum standard for graduates is viewed as worth the cost.

I would claim that a source variation within the educational system is as important as its level.
E.g. German system explicitly divides middle to high school students into different streams depending on academic aptitude. This means that one needs to be both smart and motivated to get into a university.
Such system is hardly more uniform than US one overall, though "university-bound" stream is definitely more uniform than US equivalent.

[Caracal]

My sense is that the k-12 education system in many countries is far more uniform than in the US, and not surprisingly, it is better funded. Having a higher minimum standard for graduates is viewed as worth the cost.

I would claim that a source variation within the educational system is as important as its level.
E.g. German system explicitly divides middle to high school students into different streams depending on academic aptitude. This means that one needs to be both smart and motivated to get into a university.
Such system is hardly more uniform than US one overall, though "university-bound" stream is definitely more uniform than US equivalent.

It isn't necessarily a system I'd want to see imported even if it was an option. One of the benefits of a decentralized system is that it actually is possible to get a very good undergraduate education almost anywhere which means that being an unmotivated teenager isn't going to necessarily determine your whole life trajectory. That's probably a very individualist American attitude, I know.

[marshwiggle]

My sense is that the k-12 education system in many countries is far more uniform than in the US, and not surprisingly, it is better funded. Having a higher minimum standard for graduates is viewed as worth the cost.

I would claim that a source variation within the educational system is as important as its level.
E.g. German system explicitly divides middle to high school students into different streams depending on academic aptitude. This means that one needs to be both smart and motivated to get into a university.
Such system is hardly more uniform than US one overall, though "university-bound" stream is definitely more uniform than US equivalent.

It isn't necessarily a system I'd want to see imported even if it was an option. One of the benefits of a decentralized system is that it actually is possible to get a very good undergraduate education almost anywhere which means that being an unmotivated teenager isn't going to necessarily determine your whole life trajectory. That's probably a very individualist American attitude, I know.

This (like legal drugs on another thread) is an example of moral hazard. By lowering the consequences of bad choices, more people will make bad choices. I'd bet there are a lot fewer "unmotivated" teenagers in Germany, and unless someone wants to argue that it's genetic, they're being motivated by consequences. (And even though their brains "haven't finished developing"!!! How is that possible???)

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

It isn't necessarily a system I'd want to see imported even if it was an option. One of the benefits of a decentralized system is that it actually is possible to get a very good undergraduate education almost anywhere which means that being an unmotivated teenager isn't going to necessarily determine your whole life trajectory. That's probably a very individualist American attitude, I know.

One of my acquaintances here (who also happened to do most of her schooling on this side of the pond) bitterly complained how she struggled in the first years of her engineering undergrad, while her classmates appeared to be way better prepared by their [much fancier] schools. So, personally I prefer one's life trajectory to be determined by their own motivation over a ZIP code.

This (like legal drugs on another thread) is an example of moral hazard. By lowering the consequences of bad choices, more people will make bad choices. I'd bet there are a lot fewer "unmotivated" teenagers in Germany, and unless someone wants to argue that it's genetic, they're being motivated by consequences. (And even though their brains "haven't finished developing"!!! How is that possible???)

Not being motivated to get  into university-bound school stream is much less of a "bad choice" in Germany (mostly due to a combination of strong manufacturing sector and a good safety net).

[Wahoo Redux]

I know very little about European education.

Anybody just Googled to see how education in these other countries are doing?

I get the impression peeps think they have solved the same problems we have.

They have not.

[mleok]

I know very little about European education.

Anybody just Googled to see how education in these other countries are doing?

I get the impression peeps think they have solved the same problems we have.

They have not.

Nobody is suggesting that they've solved the same problems, they're suggesting that our problems are a consequence of the intrinsic assumption that college is the time for a student to "find themselves" by being exposed to a broad range of subjects, whereas most other countries have a far more robust system of K-12 education where most of the distribution and general education is concentrated, and college is therefore far more focused on their main area of study.

[mleok]

It isn't necessarily a system I'd want to see imported even if it was an option. One of the benefits of a decentralized system is that it actually is possible to get a very good undergraduate education almost anywhere which means that being an unmotivated teenager isn't going to necessarily determine your whole life trajectory. That's probably a very individualist American attitude, I know.

In order to get a very good undergraduate education almost anywhere, one needs to go from being an unmotivated teenager into an extraordinary motivated adult. I have always viewed the centralized vs. decentralized systems in this way, that in the US system, in terms of the distribution of outcomes, the mean is lower, but the variance is higher. So, for an extremely motivated student, the US is a fantastic system if you attend the most elite colleges and take advantage of the flexibility to do research and take graduate level classes. But, for the vast majority of students, the lack of structure and lack of standards results in a substandard quality of education that is not well thought out, and dramatically reduces the quality of outcomes.

In any case, it not just an "individualist" American attitude, but it demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance, both of other systems, and the reality for the vast majority of students in the United States who are permanently disadvantaged by the low quality K-12 education that is a consequence of "decentralization" and funding models that are based on property taxes. For every one student in the US that is able to benefit from the flexibility to not be streamed into an academic vs. non-academic track (as in many European and Asian systems), there are far more whose life trajectory are determined in large part by which zip code they live in. Put another way, the US system is fantastic if you're a rich and privillaged unmotivated kid, who decides to get their act together in later life, but it's worse than the alternatives for most other people.

[Wahoo Redux]

I know very little about European education.

Anybody just Googled to see how education in these other countries are doing?

I get the impression peeps think they have solved the same problems we have.

They have not.

Nobody is suggesting that they've solved the same problems, they're suggesting that our problems are a consequence of the intrinsic assumption that college is the time for a student to "find themselves" by being exposed to a broad range of subjects, whereas most other countries have a far more robust system of K-12 education where most of the distribution and general education is concentrated, and college is therefore far more focused on their main area of study.

Understood.

Do we have any indication that this is a better system?

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

I know very little about European education.

Anybody just Googled to see how education in these other countries are doing?

I get the impression peeps think they have solved the same problems we have.

They have not.

Indeed they haven't solved many of these problems. They simply didn't have them in the first place. The point is not that European approach is perfect. It isn't (there is no single "European" approach to start with).
The comparison with Europe
a) highlights how multiple things people here consider necessary for good education (e.g. a la carte choice of courses), aren't so
b) shows how certain problems of educational systems can be directly linked to their basic structure
c) reminds that there is more than one way to structure post-secondary education

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Understood.

Do we have any indication that this is a better system?

It does not matter in the context of this thread.
It shows that if tomorrow students will stop taking elective "general education" courses in the universities, sky will not fall