surprise !

[VGR]

(1) 17% of young "americans" practice a second language, against 54% of young French and 89% of young Swedish. This explains partly the results.

We generally don't need to know another language...ever since English replaced French as the language of diplomacy.

It's only a matter of culture, not of necessity.
Google for the languages on Earth and the number of speakers ;-)

(2) the geography courses are mandatory all along the classical studies in France. I guess they are not in U.S.A., from what National Geographic wrote.

Don't you think it's more likely that we are just intellectually inferior?

I don't think so. But you've the educational system you built, so you deserve it ;-)

I was right, I'm right...blah blah blah

You said we couldn't place ourselves on the globe...quick - google that and report back.
[/suote]
Well, it's written explicitly in various reports and studies, including that National Geographic ("Born in the USA") one.
Not placing the NYC state is, as a local geography question, very easy and ***a lot*** of your comrades simply can't get it right.

Is it racial? I have a thing or two to say about races

Hey! That seems to be part of our culture that the French have appropriated: race riots. But that's just the beginning -- Pretty soon they'll all be eating Burger King and driving SUVs.

Please don't mix MY quotes with the ones oif other people, especially when it comes to terms like "race" and "racial" I never employed. Next time you quote me, I suppose you will compare me to Adolf Hitler ? :/

As for SUVs, well yes, I would perhaps like to drive a Cayenne Turbo (I already own an other Porsche), but the big ugly heavy monsters that you call SUVs in U.S.A., you can keep them and trash them right away :D for driving in cities, it's ridiculous, for driving on highways it's too slow, too heavy and consumes too much, for driving in real outdoors nothing compares to a Range Rover or Cayenne (again), so...

As for Burger Kigs, you would be very disappointed. We only have - roughly - "Mes couilles Mickey" (like "Ma queue Donald") and the european Quick. The others do not really count. One KFC here, one Burger there - distasteful if you want my opinion -.

Anyway, only the mentally ungifted go to those places on a regular basis. We're not crazy. We love good real healthy food :D

[Esopo]

Anyway, only the mentally ungifted go to those places on a regular basis. We're not crazy. We love good real healthy food

I love Whoppers. I wouldn't consider myself a regular but I am no stranger to the King.

http://www.subservientchicken.com

Have it your way!! (or so they say)

[VGR]

fun

[nicholassolutions]

It's only a matter of culture, not of necessity.
Google for the languages on Earth and the number of speakers ;-)

OK  :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_speakers
Approximately 170-200 million people speak English as a second language. That's more than other languages, except for Chinese and Hindi, and in those regions, people typically speak several languages out of necessity as a result of the lingual diversity. I rather doubt that most people (including in Sweden and France) learn English for reasons other than its practicality.

Most people in the US do not travel outside of their country because it is so large, and we only border one nation where English is not the oficial language. Even when they do travel, the people Americans encounter in other countries speak English, and would often rather converse that way with Americans (this is not true in France, of course). People in the rest of the world have more incidental and unaviodable contact with English than we do with other languages. The fact that we hav fewer multilingual citizens may in part be a result of intellectual and cultural apathy, but it also makes a certain degree of intuitive sense, and in and of itself is not eveidence of any inherent flaw.

Speaking of the vastness of the US, I think you'd find that speaking of our "culture" or our "educational system" as if they are cohesive and homogeneous entities is fairly misguided. We have something like 65% as many people as the EU as a whole. None of my comrades is unable to find himself on the globe, though some of my compatriots may be ignorant in that respect. The cultures of the northeastern, southern, midwestern, and west coast are not one and the same. In some of my travels to other parts of the country, I have often had the feeling that I was 'in another country.' Luckily we have enough in common to sick together as a nation, and enough space (and tolerance) to hapilly maintain our different ways of life.

Please don't mix MY quotes with the ones oif other people, especially when it comes to terms like "race" and "racial" I never employed. Next time you quote me, I suppose you will compare me to Adolf Hitler ? :/

Hardly -- you want to claim ownership of cultures that are not yours. Hitler wanted to destory them. At any rate, I apologize for not using the quote="VGR" and quote="Esopo" to make it clear who said what...I assumed anyone who was actually reading the thread would have known. My comment, of course, was mostly facetious (though if your country's race problems are not addressed, I predict you will face many of the same problems that we do) and I agree with your opinions on SUVs and fast food. Although every once in a while a Whopper really does hit the spot ;-)

By the way, one point where I bet the US would do better than the French is in identifying their own country as a 'nuclear' nation (if only because we have so many war mongers): according to the study you mentioned, apparently a quarter of your population cannot http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey_2.html

[nicholassolutions]

By the way, be sure to respond -- I voted for "8+ pages" and I hate being wrong ;-)

[Esopo]

I want to address the point on education.

Yes, a great deal of Americans is ignorant and dumb. That is not news. ;)
Is not that there is not plenty of ignorance in the rest of the world, the matter is how outrageously blatant the ignorance is in a place with such a humongous budget for education and such access to information. Here, most people seem to think Africa is a country and the US is a continent. One of my English teachers in college confessed that plenty of students make it into college (private college) being completely illiterate!!

But, I am not talking about everybody.

The US is also a country with:

- 3 of the 10 most influential cities in the word (no other country can claim more than 1 city in that list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

- 12 of the top 20 Universities in the world (THES 2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_Higher_Education_Supplement

- Highest Gross Domestic Product ($41.8k per capita)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

And, last but certainly not least,

- The highest number of Nobel laureates

So, making a point about the US being an ignorant nation is just not possible. Perhaps a point could be made that education is not equally distributed, but that is not a problem limited to the US, and further, many would argue it is not a problem at all (keep them fat and focused on the entertainment industry and they won’t care if we destroy a country or two – they will actually enjoy it).


PS, I think we can stop here. I voted for 6.

[VGR]

I want to address the point on education.
Yes, a great deal of Americans is ignorant and dumb. That is not news. ;)
Is not that there is not plenty of ignorance in the rest of the world, the matter is how outrageously blatant the ignorance is in a place with such a humongous budget for education and such access to information. Here, most people seem to think Africa is a country and the US is a continent. One of my English teachers in college confessed that plenty of students make it into college (private college) being completely illiterate!!

as do at least 10% of ours ;-)
Perfectly agree with you. That's the situation I don't understand ; I would have expected such a big, populated & rich country to be more a "phare of civilisation", especially if it has the most Nobel prizes, the most rich cities, the highest PIB (=GDB) ;-)

But, I am not talking about everybody.

nor am I.

The US is also a country with:

- 3 of the 10 most influential cities in the word (no other country can claim more than 1 city in that list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

Well, considering that I find this list perfectly artificial in its build, I suggest you compare comparable quantities :D
If you compare EU with 11 countries (or even the original CEE with 6 countries only), the ratio is a lot better. It's always better to compare 300 million people to 300 million people, on a similar land area (so to have a firm ground basis :D ).
Each european country has usually ONE and only ONE such city (of course). Why would we have more than one ? Historically, ONE city took prevalence over the others. Example for France : Lyon, once capital of the Gaule, left his predominance to Paris (Lutèce), the tiny town where the Franks established their royal power. But Lyon, Marseille and Lille all amount for roughly one million persons and are "regional metropoles" all by themselves. They're not Paris - centralized power rulz - but they have arguments too. All three are in your list, with strange rankings like "minimal evidence" for Lille, something I find distasteful to say the least.

- 12 of the top 20 Universities in the world (THES 2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_Higher_Education_Supplement

Sure. I can also show you lists of rankings made with MY criteria, and probably your universities wouldn't rank very well :D

- Highest Gross Domestic Product ($41.8k per capita)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

This is wrong. It's Luxembourg (sorry for you : it's in Europe ;-)
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php
U.S.A. has 6% more GDP than Cayman Islands and Bermuda Islands and even the TINY TINY San Marino is not far away... Funny, isn't it ? :D
Compare the comparable.

And, last but certainly not least,

- The highest number of Nobel laureates

Sure. Did you take into account the high number of naturalized "americans" in the total ? ;-)
Did you count Gérard Debreu (1983 Nobel prize in Economy), born in France and French before being "American citizen" ?
If you compare Scandinavian and especially Norvegian - such a miserable country, isn't it ? When it come to PDB ;-) - with U.S.A. in Economy Nobel prizes, the comparison is not really in your favour.

Actually, if you compare the number of Nobel prizes (remember there is no Mathematics Nobel prize, which disadvantages Europe and France especially) with the population ranking, you get this picture where you can easily  see that France is above U.S.A.
(from http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Nobels.html )

So, making a point about the US being an ignorant nation is just not possible.

I never said that. I asked questions about an educational  situation I find "strange", that's all.

[Esopo]

VGR,
I have nothing against your opinions, In my view you are welcome to have them as diverse as you will. But,

The Times Higher Education Sumplement is a UK based respectable publication. You may be able to come up with a different list, but you can't take credit away from the one the THES publishes. it is widely recognized.
http://www.thes.co.uk/site_information/about_the_thes/

This is wrong. It's Luxembourg (sorry for you : it's in Europe ;-)

First of all I am not really defending the US so I wouldn't feel sorry if it didn't have the higest GDP, but it does. Your numbers are from 2003, my quote is from the second quarter of 2005.

Sure. Did you take into account...

No, I did not. Given the obscenely large percentage of US Nobel prize winners (250+ from a total of 776 throughout history) I didn't deem it necessary to filter out the special cases. It would take a large amount of work to remove from that total all the "special cases" and you would still not end up with a number lower than the runner-up country.

[VGR]

VGR,
I have nothing against your opinions, In my view you are welcome to have them as diverse as you will. But,

Well, you're too kind to me :D

free speech ? Democracy ? Liberty ? In dollar we trust ?

The Times Higher Education Sumplement is a UK based respectable publication. You may be able to come up with a different list, but you can't take credit away from the one the THES publishes. it is widely recognized.
http://www.thes.co.uk/site_information/about_the_thes/

Not really. It is widely accepted in the anglo-saxon world, but it brings up a lot of negative reactions in the rest of the world.

You can find reactions from a big Belgian university , ULg (ranked 196th) here http://recteur.blogs.ulg.ac.be/?cat=9
quoting/translating :

Rien ne fait de ce classement un passage obligé. Les critères qu’il utilise sont très contestables et particulièrement biaisés. Le succès des universités australiennes est très suspect (13 dans les 161 premiers !), de même que celui des universités de Hong Kong ou de Singapour. Il se trouve que je connais personnellement quelque peu l’Université de Novosibirsk et son président. Sa 169è position laisse rêveur…

Nothing makes this classement an obliged passage. Criteria it does use are very contestables and particularly biased. The success of australian universities (13 in the first 161 ! ) is very suspect, as are the one of universities from Hong Kong or Singapour. It happens that I know personally the university of Novosibirsk and its president. Its 169th position leaves me wondering…

The recteur from that liegean university details how the T.H.E.S. ranking is built, and points out that it is composed : (2004 study, the 2005 doesn't ask for the Nobel or Fields stuff)
First it has been conducted by a London-based private firm called QS on behalf of the T.H.E.S.
That company begun by collecting data about each institution :
1. A « Peer review score », ie a notoriety study. It is conducted by asking a panel of 1300 scholars of 88 countries on all continents which were the most prestigious universities in their field. This amounts for 50% in the final calculation.
2. A measure of the impact of research, calculated on the basis of the number of quotes of the members of those institutions in « Essential Science Indicators » (published by Thomson Scientific, ex-ISI). A criterium favorishing indiscutably anglo-saxon and "hard" sciences. This amounts for 20%

On the basis of those two elements, QS made a selection of the first 300 after elmiminating specialized institutions that made less than 5000 publications over the year (a fast search with « Scholar Google » detects 27.778 for l’ULg in 2004, but by counting 2.530 publications for the CHU de Liège which « forget » to mention  the ULg, 658 attached to the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Liège and 2.600 of the l’University Hospital of Liège !)

Then, QS searched an information complement in the databases like the one from ISI, on the web sites, and by email or phone to the institutions themselves. The questions asked :

3. Le rapport d’encadrement (20 %) (staffing report?)
4. La proportion d’encadrants étrangers (5 %) (foreign staffing)
5. La proportion d’étudiants étrangers (5 %) (foreign students)

Alsa taken into account :

6. Number of laureates from Prix Nobel or Médaille Fields
7. Number and ratio of personnel belgian and internationals
8. Number and ratio of students belgian and internationals
 (excepted-Erasmus)
9. student mobility in exchange networks
10. number of students in 2nd and 3rd cycle
11. Le montant moyen du minerval pour les étudiants internationaux de 2è cycle et de 3è cycle [that's typically belgian IMHO]
12. total of spendings for bibliotheques

Clearly, if you want my opinion, this clearly states why I think this T.H.E.S. isn't serious at all.

Also, take into account that the Jiao Tong University of Shanghai also produces a classement, with very different results from T.H.E.S. and this is a clear text about "why it doesn't apply to us fairly" http://www.boivigny.com/index.php?action=article&id_article=225084

quoting/translating :

Les médias anglais se sont réjouis de voir Cambridge se positionner au deuxième rang mondial, juste derrière Harvard. Le quotidien "Guardian" parle ainsi de la "respected Shanghai Jia Tong" qui a su classer 11 universités britanniques dans le top 100 mondial, alors même que les établissements anglais travaillent avec "des moyens considérablement inférieurs à ceux des universités américaines", qui dominent le classement.
En Italie, le quotidien "La Repubblica" a salué la performance de "La Sapienza" de Rome qui s'est classée 97ème, devant toutes les autres universités italiennes. Le journal s'interroge toutefois sur la pertinence du classement alors que "La Bocconi" de Milan, considérée comme l'un des meilleurs établissements transalpins, ne trouve même pas sa place dans le classement chinois.
Les résultats obtenus par les universités françaises sont mauvais - 22 universités classées, dont quatre seulement parmi les cent premières : Paris VI est 46ème, Paris IX, 61ème, Strasbourg I 92ème. Ce palmarès ne correspond pas aux logiques hexagonales: les grandes écoles sont quasiment oubliées (hormis l'ENS Ulm en 93ème position). Il est vrai qu'il donne une prime aux très grands établissements (en terme quantitatif) à forte composante scientifique. Les grandes écoles françaises sont donc trop petites pour y figurer en bonne place.

English media rejoyced from seeing Cambridge ranked 2nd in the world, just behind Harvard. The quotidian "Guardian" thus writes about the "respected Shanghai Jia Tong" that managed to rank 11 britannic universities in the world's top 100, while they have "considerable less means than american universities", which dominate the classement.
In Italy, the quotidian "La Repubblica" saluted the performance of "La Sapienza" of Rome which ranked 97th, ahead of all italian universities. The newspaper wonders nevertheless on the pertinence of the classement as the "La Bocconi" of Milan, considered as one of the best transalpine institutions, is not even ranked in the chinese classement.
Results obtained by French universities are bad - 22 universités ranked, with only 4 in the best 100 : Paris VI is 46th, Paris IX 61th, Strasbourg I 92th. This palmares doesn't correspond to hexagonal [France's] logics : "les grandes écoles" are almost completely forgotten (except the ENS Ulm in 93th position). It's true that it advantages a lot big institutions (in quantitative terms) with a strong scientific component. the french "grandes écoles" are thus too small to enter the ranking.

Quality hasn't anything to do with quantity...

Also, in the Financial Times there is an other classement which ranks the "écoles de commerce" (the 25 best MBAs, masters in management, in Europe)
Those French "grandes écoles" ranks respectively 1st (HEC), ESCP-EAP (2nd), Essec (7th), Grenoble EM (8th), EM Lyon (9th), Edhec (12th) and Audencia (16th)

So you see, "international ranking" doesn't summarize in T.H.E.S. and T.H.E.S. only.

[COBOLdinosaur]

All such rankings are automaticlly biased as soon as you determine the selection criteria.  IT is not possible to determine a set of factors, and weighting without bias.  The best you can expect to do is get some rating of how things rank for a narrow definition of "quality".  

Expecting a rating system for universities to be acceptable accross all cultures and systems of education is no different than expecting culturally diffrent groups to act the same way and agree on the same things when setting priorities.  

It is called diversity, and we should be glad we have it. IT would be boring if we all did things teh same way; thought the same way; and agreed on what is important in the world.

[VGR]

yes...

but if I compare north-america's culture with a fictive, idealized and average low-denominator "european culture", It could be said we share a reasonably-broad basis ; from that common ground, the current differences of culture are difficult to understand (by me, at least)

For example, don't we share a society governed by a formal Law based on the formal Decalogue (Ten Commandments) ? Civil Rights derived from the universal declaration of human rights etc ?

In both, murder is evil, jealousy and greed are sins, charity is a virtue and your neighbour is your brother... no ?

I like diversity ; I only want to understand.

[nicholassolutions]

The whole idea of ranking schools is in general silly. What the students get out of them is far more the result of what the students do than what the schools have to offer, IMO. I went to one of the schools in the 'top 10' of the THES list and majored in physics. In the vast majority of my courses, I was virtually entirely self-taught and found the professors to be rather distracted and even disinterested. Many of them were there to grade more than to teach. The most valuable resources they had to offer were a good library and the internet, so I could read class notes from Canadian universities (don't gloat too much over this Roy  :wink:) where the professors had actually taken the time to think about teaching the material. My brother went to a small college that is well-respected here, but nowhere on the THES list. I think he may well have gotten a better education (and for less money). In the humanities, the situation was probably not quite so bad.

But the universities have nothing to do with the average population, or with the deicits we have been discussing. You don't learn to place yourself on the globe in universities; you don't learn to read, write and speak properly there either. And you certainly don't learn for the first time that the world extends beyond the borders of your own country. These are things you learn at home and in primary school.

The sad state of affairs (which is sad by both American and European standards) of our primary educational system is purely cultural, and despite the facts that the teachers often leave much to be desired and that the curriculum is often inane, the main problem is actually the students -- they don't want to learn. Parents are either disinterested, or they nag their kids to work, but they don't teach them themselves, or instill an appreciation of learning and knowledge in their children. The children hear their parents complain about how difficult life is and then plant themselves in front of the TV with their kids, where they see thousands of ways you can "make it" while intellectually ignorant. What's worse, these things are glorified so that children believe that anyone who works hard to earn a decent living is a sucker. It's all superficial, all about image and money.

When they go to school, these things are amplified, because children are naturally preoccupied with fitting in and being "cool", and because their parents have not prepared them to learn. Kids who do their homework and respond to the teachers' questions are suckers and kiss-ups. Kids who study at night instead of hanging out at the mall are losers. Especially in poorer communities, getting and education and going to college is seen as "selling out (to the Man)" or "forgetting you roots" by many people. In most schools, you have to pay a tremendous personal price for knowledge, and most children don't have the strength or the foresight to realize that it's actually worth it. And the ones who do choose to learn are often doing it only because they know they can make more money if they do, not because they actually enjoy learning. Thy have the resources to be much more educated than they are, but they choose not to use them.
When they grow up ignorant, they blame the system and expect a handout. They teach their kids the same crappy attitudes their parents taught them.

This isn't true for everyone, obviously, but I believe the problems are actually getting worse in many areas rather than better. The result is that we have many citizens who cannot even read a newspaper and comprehend it correctly.

Given that, it's not surprising that schools don't care much about teaching geography: they're struggling to teach people the most basic skills. It's not a matter of educational resources, it's a matter of getting the children to "take their medicine" or "eat their vegetables" or whatever -- to learn. Every year the schools take on more and more roles that have traditionally (and correctly IMNSHO) been the responsibilities of the parents. In some populations, this produces outrage. In others, parents are just as happy to relinquish the responsibility.

[nicholassolutions]

One other thing -- if you watch American movies, you'd be lead to believe that well-educated people were just born that way. We seem to love movies about geniuses who "just know stuff" because they are so super smart that all they have to do is glance at the cover of a textbook to learn quantum mechanics. The fact is that for however smart Einstein was, I've seen pictures of him buried under papers...even he had to work hard. But if you asked most Americans, I think they would grossly underestimate that.

[VGR]

The sad state of affairs (which is sad by both American and European standards) of our primary educational system is purely cultural, and despite the facts that the teachers often leave much to be desired and that the curriculum is often inane, the main problem is actually the students -- they don't want to learn. Parents are either disinterested, or they nag their kids to work, but they don't teach them themselves, or instill an appreciation of learning and knowledge in their children. The children hear their parents complain about how difficult life is and then plant themselves in front of the TV with their kids, where they see thousands of ways you can "make it" while intellectually ignorant. What's worse, these things are glorified so that children believe that anyone who works hard to earn a decent living is a sucker. It's all superficial, all about image and money.

I can't comment more on that than by admitting I do 100% agree ;)
Sadly, it's the same here. Some call that "americanization of society", but in fact the problem here is worse because the "problem population" is made of immigrants that don't want to integrate. And the first integration tool is school.

This isn't true for everyone, obviously, but I believe the problems are actually getting worse in many areas rather than better. The result is that we have many citizens who cannot even read a newspaper and comprehend it correctly.

Same as here. Worse, in fact ;-)
That's why democracy is so diminished and demagogy and apparences so important.
I think that (sadly) the U.S.A. begins to understand our concerns about immigration, islamic veil and such because of the U.S. having a raising Spanish-speaking-only minority/majority (depending) that wants to live speaking Spanish only. I hope you can solve the problem in the future.

Given that, it's not surprising that schools don't care much about teaching geography: they're struggling to teach people the most basic skills. [...] Every year the schools take on more and more roles that have traditionally been the responsibilities of the parents. In some populations, this produces outrage. In others, parents are just as happy to relinquish the responsibility.

Absolutely the same as here, with the same results. Again, we have a lot of Maghreb immigrants - perfectly integrated, usually - that have rebel children leading to riots, revolts, degradations, sometimes murders, because they have lost all authority on them and because the childrendon't feel "at home" in France. They don't want to work hard as their parents, they don't wan to learn hard in school, they don't want to speak French (properly or at all), they don't want to be honest, they don't show any respect except for brute force, they spread chaos and destruction everywhere they pass and they can't even leave this country, 'cause they're in fact apatrids in their mind. If ever they knew what is a patry ;-)

As is said, "la France, aimez-la ou quittez-la." (and I think this is an adaptation of a U.S. slogan)

Well, even if not everybody can be a Ms, it's a disgusting humanity that I see.

There's hope though : I fell 100% in agreement with you, [MODE JOKE ON]nasty fatty greedy arrogant stubborn American[MODE JOKE OFF]! Isn't this wonderful ? Champagne! :D

[nicholassolutions]

As is said, "la France, aimez-la ou quittez-la." (and I think this is an adaptation of a U.S. slogan)

Yes, that is a common retort of the right wing here ("America: love it or leave it"), which I believe came into popularity during our war in Viet Nam as a response to protestors. It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I agree with it. On the other, it helps to promote the complacency and arrogance that leads to so many of our problems.

There's hope though : I fell 100% in agreement with you, [MODE JOKE ON]nasty fatty greedy arrogant stubborn American[MODE JOKE OFF]! Isn't this wonderful ? Champagne! :D

Shoot. I guess that means we might not make it to 8+  :sad3:
Oh well, pass the Champagne ;-)