The Bush administration is not exactly known for an evidence-based approach to its policies: it has been funding “faith-based” initiatives, it has started a war on the basis of imaginary weapons of mass destruction, and it keeps arguing that the situation in Iraq is improving despite the fact – obvious to almost everyone else – that it is a quagmire from which it will be very difficult for the next President to extricate the US.
The latest example of how Bush & co. simply disregard reality is an article in this week's Science magazine, reporting that the administration has bowed out of the next round of the advanced version of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS-A), scheduled for 2008. The TIMMS-A compares how well high school students from 16 countries who take advanced courses (hence the “A” in the acronym) in math and physics do. The reason this is important is that this group includes the students most likely to become the next generation of scientists and engineers, something obviously crucial for a country competing in the global economy.
But you see, in 1995 – the last time this international study was conducted – the US ranked dead last in physics, and next to last in math. Not exactly an encouraging performance, although of course, Bush can't be blamed for it . Nonetheless, the Bush administration apparently wishes to avoid a repetition of that abysmal failure, because it would cast a significant shadow over its much-trumpeted “no child left behind” program, which has already repeatedly been criticized by educators (i.e., by those who actually know about teaching).
Of course, the official excuse for why the US is not participating in TIMMS-A 2008 is not that the Americans are chickening out of an international comparative study, but that, you see, we don't have the money to contribute to the funding of said study: $5-10 million dollars! That's at the same time that we are spending hundreds of billions (with a “b”) every year on Iraq. Give me a break.
Patsy Wang-Iverson, coordinator of a group advocating for the participation of the US to TIMSS-A, said that “if we don't do it now, we'll lose track of an entire generation of reform efforts.” But that's precisely the point: no data, no basis for complaint. Could it be for a similar reason that the same Bush administration has long decided not to count civilian Iraqi casualties during their insane war? Inquiring minds can't help wondering...
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
And yet the US still gets more than its share of Nobel prizes. How so?
ReplyDeleteAnd yet the US still gets more than its share of Nobel prizes. How so?
ReplyDelete1. Nobel prizes are awarded many years, often decades after the work in question. Anything that impacts high-school math and science education now won't have an effect on the geographic distribution of the Nobels for 25 or more years.
2. Large fractions, sometimes more than half, of US graduate programs in science faculties are composed of students born in countries other than the USA. The US still offers absolutely world-class education at the highest levels. People who move to the US to study often stay in the US, and become citizens. If they go on to win Nobels, then those count as US Nobels.
"...something obviously crucial for a country competing in the global economy"
ReplyDeleteSorry Massimo, but I hate this phrase and I think you (and everyone else) need to stop using it. The US does not compete with other countries because countries, unlike firms, cannot go out of business. If, say, Spain gets 10% richer next year, it is not at the expense of the US (or any other country). The reason we should be worried about science education is not our 'global competitiveness' but the fact that a well educated and highly skilled populace benefits everyone in the country, regardless of what happens in the rest of the world. If this seems like an odd concept, read Paul Krugman's "Pop Internationalism" for clarification.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with aspects of what you claim here. There is alot packed in there!
First of all, countries may not "go out of businesss" in the short historical term, but they can decline in power and influence (although this might be a good thing in the U.S.'s or any other case of an imperial power).
Portugal or Spain are cases in point. Both were vast colonial/commercial empires, and now especially Portugal is an insignificant power in those terms.
Now under contemporary capitalism, multinational firms really have no ultimate allegiance to their home nation state. Thus their competitiveness in the world economy is not dependent exclusively on one nation's population. However, they can benefit from the highly educated population that a particular nation produces. What we see now is that multinational corps. are tapping into the highly educated (at lower cost) populations of China and India. So these benefits in competitiveness do not neccessarily flow back to any particular society.
On the longer historical time horizon, whole societies, and networks of societies completely collapse. When this happens, I don't think this will be a failure to "compete in the world economy", but will be more of a macro-systemic-ecological process effecting multiple nation states. Modern nation states are a relatively recent phenomoena (roughly last 500 yrs), and its hard to have a clear idea how this might happen. Seems to me that to prevent this from happening it is more of a question of how to rationally use our science and technology with an eye towards sustainability, rather than attempting to "compete in the world economy" more effectively.
"If, say, Spain gets 10% richer next year, it is not at the expense of the US (or any other country)."
I think there is more to it than that. For example, many third-world countries are poor because their developement has been stunted by their dependent relationship in the world economy.
"Not exactly an encouraging performance, although of course, Bush can't be blamed for it."
ReplyDeleteDaddy can! Just kidding, of course. These things take time.
Now, I wonder whether it would be possible for a bunch of [m|b]illionaires concerned about the educational landscape to fund the participation of the US in this study. I'm sure there are lots of them out there, and such amount of money is pocket change to them. Or does it HAVE to be through government or you can't participate?
"read Paul Krugman's "Pop Internationalism" for clarification."
ReplyDeleteChris,
I went to look this up, and couldn't find it at the NY Times. Was it one of his columns? Entered the title in the search engine on his page, didn't come up.
sheldon,
ReplyDeleteNo, Pop Internationalism is a collection of essays published in 1994. The specific topics he deals with (e.g. competition from Japanese automakers) may seem somewhat anachronistic, but the principles haven't changed. If you don't want to buy the book, I think you find everything on www.pkarchive.org. In the present context, look for "Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession" (under the "Global" tab). At the archive you can browse through titles to find other interesting essays (he has written a ton!). He's also a really good writer, in my opinion.
-- Chris
"The latest example of how Bush & co. simply disregard reality is an article in this week's Science magazine, reporting that the administration has bowed out of the next round of the advanced version of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS-A)"
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is interesting is that very few people have access to Science magazine ($142.00 a year, no, local libraries can't afford it either.) I don't see TIMSS-A mentioned in local newspapers. I'm not sure what outcomes of the test actually mean, perhaps they discussed it in the article. What is it that counts as an advanced math and physics course? In American high schools this is generally the AP classes, where students are typically drilled in topics to be covered on the SATs. That may or may not be preparing them for a different test, the TIMSS-A.
Sometimes, if a high school is lucky, they will have a dedicated teacher who is well versed in math and the sciences, and also in communicating with and teaching young people. (Such teachers may only last a few years before political jealousies or fundamentalist sensibilities run them out of town.) Perhaps the students of that teacher would have the breadth of understanding to succeed in any standardized test. What is the teaching like in other countries? How are the students prepared? What are their classes like?
Do people really believe that the TIMSS-A is a predictor of future Nobel-laureate level work, insight, creativity? How does it measure that?