Talk:Education in the United States

Education index of 99.9

"The United Nations assigned an Education Index of 99.9 to the United States, ranking it number 1 in the world, a position it shares with about 20 other nations.[1]"

- not true, at least not true according to the link given to support this claim. Education index for the US is 0.97 (which is a good result, but not number 1 in the world).

I remove this statement until valid evidence is provided.

Home Education

The article would benefit if somebody could add some material about homeschooling in the US. It would shed some light on the education being received by millions of children in this country. Unfortunately I've got no time to spare, but I thought I'd suggest it. RubyQ 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Equality amoung states and regions

According to one ranking system (Morgan Quitno)[1],by michael henry reiser***** there are some interesting correlations between the locations (regions) of smart states and the not-as-smart states. Is it a valid arguement to present the NE and mid-west as having better school districts than say, the south? If it is corroborated through other sources, would it have a place in the wikipedia? BTW, here's a map of the statistics from that one website[[Image:US_smarteststate.jpg]. C. Nelson 04:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

old topic

This article could do with some work! I know nothing about US Education, but there must be plenty of people here who do? I'll add it to the Stub page and the United States list of topics, see if that gets some work done! -- Steinsky 01:31, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Issues

I would suggest adding information under curriculum issues information on the achievement gap and english language learners.

post sec POV

I'd say that the section on post secondary education is quite biased. It doesn't mention junior/community colleges as well as two year colleges. And its tone is unecyclopeadic. It barely mentions mainstream state universities. Thunderbolt16 04:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

There are many issues with education in the United States today but the main problem is that schools today focus on testing rather than curriculum itself. Teachers teach to the test rather than to real life and students lose the interest in the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.133.36 (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

overal tone of this article

I really do not like this article, but I just don't know what to change to improve it. I feel the overall tone is as if it were being told by someone who doesn't like public education. The author appears to be someone who attended private school or someone who views all public school in this country to be poor, which just isn't the case. The current issues section has somewhat of a conservative bias. Could be included that discussed how school system relates to the community, or for example, the school culture? Little about after school activities is included which are important to many students and an important part of american educational values. Could get an author here who is/was a public school teacher or administrator to help this article out? It so bad.. I almost feel it needs to be completely reworked from scratch because it just doesn't explain the US education system as it is to those involved in it.

Not that you really seem to be an expert in education...can we spell today?--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

And public education in the United States is generally poor. I should know, I'm in it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a large part of the current article and I'm glad that Naryathegreat concurs with my analysis. The fact that the anonymous user criticizing the article cannot even use proper spelling, grammar, style, or punctuation is itself a sign of how poor American public education is. If our primary educational system were doing so well, I doubt there would be so much enthusiasm in most American cities for innovations like school vouchers, charter schools, and magnet schools.

Also, although I know a lot more about how awful the system is, I left most of those facts out to comply with the WP NPOV policy. For example, a poll of American K-12 teachers about 5 or 6 years ago found that more than 3/4ths of them, if they could live their lives over again, would not choose the same career.

Generally, we do not achieve NPOV by omitting all points of view. Instead, we find sources — "authorities", or perhaps the better word is "experts" — and cite the statements they make. If this "poll of American K-12 teachers" appeared in a reputable journal, then a citation to that journal is perfectly appropriate.

Remember, bibliographies rock!

I would also caution against statements like "I grew up in public school, so I know how bad it is". Believe me, I could say the same thing. (I spent a couple years outside the system, too, which did me a world of good and gave me something to compare public schools to.) However, I try not to let my personal history bias how I see a phenomenon which is, after all, much bigger than my own experience. This is just a matter of integrity, scientific integrity. It's a tough call: I know I've seen things which no "professional education expert" has bothered to observe, but how much of my experience is reflected in other schools, in other cities and states?

Anville 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the point about afterschool activities, I agree that they are relevant and should be briefly discussed. I'll add a section when I have the time. --Coolcaesar 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance in helping me learn how to be a member of the community. I apologize for the mistakes in typing, but they were due to haste. That is the reason I did not touch the page and only asked that it be reviewed. Also, I created an account and I hope that vetran users will help me become a good community member. --Telescopium1

The conservative tone is readily apparent to an international reader such as myself. For example, "...politically correct curriculum currently in widespread vogue within the public eduction establishment." Although that statement is immediately followed by a reference, the reference does not confirm that: the curriculum is politically correct; or that: such curriculums are in widespread use. And even if these claims are true they miss the point: if it is a "vogue" then how did it arrive, how did it spread, why is the US experience different?

The statement that US school funding is high sounds surprised by that. The US is a wealthy nation with a strong regard for education (even US lobby groups use the trade dress of academic research institutions). A high level of spending is to be expected. What is surprising is the promotion of the idea that spending is too high. Since this is unexpected, the causes of that idea and the forces of its promotion could be briefly outlined.

The article reads as if written by a lobby group opposed to government-funded education. US education is, on the whole, regarded internationally as a success. You can judge by results: the US is a powerhouse of research, is the cultural centre of the English-speaking world, etc. Gdt (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, people always accuse wikipedia of being too liberal; it seems that the writer of this article is a conservative fucktard. This article was clearly written by and for conservatives who likely want prayer and intelligent design/creationism taught/practiced in public schools. Oh, I forgot you've been to every school in the U.S. so you obviously know the state and that all of your sources are 100% reliable, right?

If you have a specific point to make about a particular section or reference, please make it. As far as the other editors go, the paragraphs are referenced with material from WP:RELY sources. Sorry you don't like it. The truth is not always easy to accept. And please sign your messages with four tildes ~~~~.Student7 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources needed

• Pre school:
  • there is a chronic nationwide shortage of quality preschools because most parents simply cannot afford better. (better child care?), the sentence is ambigious and needs a source.
• College or Univeristy:
  • The vast majority of students never attend postgraduate courses and, after obtaining their bachelor's degree, proceed directly into the work force. What percentage of students do undertake postgraduate study?
• Public vs. private schools: Primary and secondary education:
  • Unlike most other industrialized countries, the United States does not have a nationalized educational system. I'm not sure what you mean ny nationalised, which countires do have nationalised systems?
  • Although they are free to all students, most public K-12 schools are moderately underfunded by their respective governments, and can only afford to employ teachers with bachelor's and associate's degrees. Please add a reference
  • In poorer districts, teachers often must buy materials for their students out of their own salaries. Is this true, also needs a ref.
  • In contrast, private schools usually maintain high quality facilities and a sufficient number of teachers to keep class sizes lower than in public schools, generally around 15 and usually capped at 20. This is possible partly because private schools pay their teachers less (often about 80% of the public school pay scale) and partly because private schools are at liberty to refuse any more students after they have reached their full capacity, whereas public schools are required by law to give education to anyone who signs up. Grammar is poor in this section, it could also use a reference.
• Public vs. private schools: Colleges and universities: Cost:
  • The vast majority of students lack the financial resources to pay tuition up-front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender. How many is vast, an actual number would be nice?

--nixie 04:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I corrected most of these issues. In the comparison of public and private schools to which you referred, I actually just removed the figures, which eliminates in real need for a source. I don't think one exists, I think that's an estimate on the part of the originl author. Much of the current article was once worded in such a manner, which subtley cast public education in a bad light. I changed up the wording. See if you like the changes.--naryathegreat | (talk) June 28, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Another list

I think this article has significantly improved since it was listed on peer review. Well done to all the editors. Below is a list of further improvements that might be made:

• There are also non-entrepreneurial schools that are private. - explain non-entrepreneurial, it's an uncommon term. [2]
• there are even counselors who specialize in assisting parents and their toddlers through the preschool admissions process. - needs a source.
• parents may educate their own children at home (although not widespread) - may be better to quote a statistic for this (with a source).
• Some groups think that children should stay in school longer, but there is little momentum from this angle. - if there is little momentum don't mention it or mention it and quote a source.
• most thoroughly unstandardized - is a tautology.
• Teachers receive a book to give to the students for each subject and only a brief overview of what they are expected to teach. - could use further explanation.
• In general, a student learns through extremely rudimentary algebra in mathematics, grammar and spelling in English (or language), and a year of state, U.S., and world history. - needs fixing. Maybe something as simple as, In general, students focus on reading, writing and arithmetic. would work.
• Science varies widely from district to district and is one of the most undertaught subjects; most elementary teachers have a degree in English or education. - needs a source.
• "adequate yearly progress." - could use a reference (possibly to the legislation itself).
• Midterms and finals paragraph could uses one or more sources.
• The vast majority of students never attend postgraduate courses - arguments like these are often more compelling if statistics are quoted (with a source).
• It is widely believed that large class sizes contribute to discipline problems and a poor learning environment. - need a source.
• The Primary and secondary education section in general could do with more citations.
• Some states have experimented with the two-tier framework and then returned to a single, unified public university system. - needs an example.
• In the Colleges and universities section consider rewriting the section so that it does not use the "University of [state name]"/"[state name] State University" format but instead mentions the University of California/California State University.
• the most prestigious universities are - Try some of the most prestigious universities are. The Times Higher Education Supplement place UC Berkeley, MIT and Caltech ahead of the other Ivy League schools.
• the School Board of the State of Kansas caused controversy - cite a news article for this event, there are plenty around.
• History section needs citations.

Cedars 08:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I finally got around to fixing these. I hope to post it to FAC soon. Thanks for all the help.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering who came up with the statement that the average child in the US goes to Kindergarten between 5 to 7 years old. Some children do not go until 6, but 7 is right out! Many states now have an age restricted system where children cannot be skipped ahead or held behind. This was the case when we were in Kentucky many moons ago. Heather Ceana K. Schmidt

Rewrite of subsection: Private vs. Public K-12

I've largely rewritten the subsection comparing private and public education. It now includes an explanation of what a school board is, a brief discussion of magnet schools, and more information on the variety of private schools (funding sources, special vs. general education).

I've removed much of the discussion comparing the merits of private and public school systems. The previous version was not NPOV. For instance, it said, "Some private schools...provide a challenging and varied curriculum," but it neglected to mention that the same is true of some public schools. The previous version also made some controversial claims for which no source was provided. (For instance, "Most public K-12 schools are moderately underfunded by their respective governments.") I think it's best for this article to avoid a discussion about whether public or private education is better. There's no way to do this without violating the NPOV and original research rules.

Empiricallyrob 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sex Education

The following paragraph doesn't sit quite right.

Today, sex education in the United States is patchy at best and nonexistent at worst. Because of the huge controversy over the issue, many schools attempt to avoid the study as much as possible in Health classes. The popular media has presented an image that does not exist; there are few specifically sex ed classes in existence. Also, because President Bush has called for abstinence-only sex education and has the power to withhold funding, many schools are backing away from any mention of birth control or contraceptives. However, a majority of Americans want complete sex education in the schools. The American people are heavily divided over the issue. [11]

First, the footnote (which points to the NPR/Kaiser/Harvard survey) only pertains to the very last bit, about what "a majority of Americans" want. I'd say that even this goes too far — who's to say that the sample was representative of the population? Better to phrase it as, "According to a 2004 study, the majority of a 1001-parent group polled said that . . ." and then give the footnote.

Interestingly, a majority of those parents said that their parents and their schools only did a "fair/poor" job of educating them about sexual issues. Maybe any progress is good progress?

Second, the other statements need backing too. The survey only glancingly touches upon the current legal status quo, and it does not address how Bush's stance has influenced schools' decisions. Ergo, these statements came from another source. That source might only be the writer's fevered imagination; there's no way to tell. (Oh, if I only had the stacks of evidence we used on Debate Team to argue sex ed, ROTC and all those fun things.) Assuming good faith, these statements may be absolutely true, and they are certainly consistent with my personal experience and prior knowledge. I have no problem with letting them stay, providing they are properly referenced.

Anville 18:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't put the Regents (Examinations) instead of the TAKS. (Kyla 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

Just a note 1001 participants would likely qualify as a satisfactory sample size. National polls rarely have more than 2000 or participants and that it is to track the opinions of the entire country. This survey was only for parents, which doesn't include everyone. There is no need to belittle the poll or undermine its results. Plus the survey in question comes from very reputable sources. I do agree though that text was poorly written. Flashdornfeld (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Elementary- grammar- grade- public school- added to the section

All can be used more or less interchangibly and without futher explanation but to conform with the Middle-, junior high, intermediate- pattern below I added these alternatives to the first section mentioned above. Are "public school" and "intermediate school" used outside of New York City? Most pre-high schools in NYC are numbered and are preceded by P.S. or I.S. This may be a NYC thing only though. 69.203.126.148 06:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)KRP

I think you're right about the numbering being a NYC thing. In California, nearly all schools are named after some famous person (or a renowned local educator), and are not numbered. "Public school" generally refers to any government-operated school (elementary, intermediate, or high school). Intermediate and junior high school are used somewhat interchangeably on the West Coast. For example, for grades 7 and 8, I attended a school that was formally designated as an "Intermediate School," but everyone informally called it "junior high." --Coolcaesar 12:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

2006 Budget numbers

I'm not positive but I believe I heard or read in the news a while back that the 2006 budget for the Department of Education was something like $50 billion. Anybody have a source for the $120.3 billion number? I'll do some searching later when I get more time to be sure.

It's actually $69.4 billion. I just added up the mandatory and discretionary at United States Department of Education when I made the box, but the mandatory is overstated their by about $50 billion (maybe an accident with the total). The data is at [3]--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening sentence

Education in the United States is highly decentralized and varies widely.

Is this what most contributors to this encyclopedia believe? Is there any disagreement on this point outside of this web site? Elabro

Many industrialized countries (e.g. France) have a centralized Ministry of Education that micromanages all details of primary and secondary education from the capital. The amount of power delegated to American teachers, school principals, PTAs, district superintendents, district boards, state superintendents, and state boards of education would be unthinkable in those countries.

Frankly, everyone else thinks America is crazy since our style of education results in massive redundancy and bureaucracy. But we prefer it to being micromanaged by distant bureaucrats in Washington. Try dealing with the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration and then you'll understand why Americans like local control over education. --Coolcaesar 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying American education is less centralized than France's. But I've also read complaints from teachers, saying that their initiative is stifled; that they are forced to use curriculums that don't work - even in such simple subjects as math and reading.

Perhaps the opening sentence of the article should talk about the degree of government influence or at least the amount of government financing. Elabro 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have modified the intro to clear up the ambiguity you have identified (due to the range of possible interpretations of "decentralized"). Looks all right to me. --Coolcaesar 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Although education is decentralized, unfunded mandates requiring certain classes to be taught rain upon American schools with frightening regularity (e.g. NCLB). Also, there is a trend towards changing the curriculum every few years, which some teachers find extremely stifiling.12.17.189.77 22:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

My brief skim of this indicates that it is a good candidate for featured article status and that the number of lists have been cut-down with only 2 so that those of us not from the [[United States|USA] understand the rest of the article. -- Chazz88 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

While America technically has a form of national education (The Department of Education), it is far less centralized than the education system of more nationally centeralized countries like France. America's federal education system originated with Lyndon Johnson's 1979 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which functioned mainly to close acheivement gaps between the majority of students and students from low-income families, students with disabilities, or students with limited English profficiency. The ESEA did not create federal regulation of education, but rather provided funds to help the specified struggling groups of students (Title I funds). Its ammending acts--Bill Clinton's Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) and George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)--have broadened federal influence on public education, but public education is still largely centered around the state education systems. This is most apparent in the sources of funding for public education. While federal "Title I" funds help states supplement education funds, the vast majority of funding still comes from state funding and local property taxes, and it is the states and local districts that decide how these funds should be spent.

Recently, public educaiton has been moving towards a more nationally centralized system. No Child Left Behind is the most broad affecting piece of national education legislation to date. No Child sets specific requirements for schools to meet and punishes shortfalls with specific sanctions like requireing tutoring for struggling students, after school programs, and even restructuring if absolutely necessary. It does not offer more funding, nor does it withhold funding when schools are sanctioned. However, the sanctions often require money to be implemented, and as a result, state funds are spread thin and some schools recieve less than they otherwise might. Whether No Child Left Behind unconstitutionally encroaches on state political sovereignty is still being debated. A flurry of litigation between states and the federal government has resulted.

However, it can still be quite reasonably argued that America does not have a nationally centralized education system. Especially not to the extent that more nationally centralized countries such as France have.

English

There is an ironically high number of speling and gramma mistakes in this article! I will take a look at it tomorrow (and doubtless insert some more of my own!) Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed your notice; it's for serious problems. I made a few little edits here or there, but definitely not anything worthy of a special notice. You of course are free to correct anything you want, but you can't add a notice like that to this article without concrete examples. And if you're going to do that, you might as well correct it on the spot. By the way, you misspelled "spelling" and "grammar". Thanks for your input!--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added the notice. Thanks for the explanation. -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't actually add the notice, as the required edits were indeed minor. I shall check back tomorrow, but as you say there wasn't too much to be done anyway, although there are a few things which might be reworded. I only mentioned it because the article seems (to my inexpert eye) to be of an otherwise very high standard. PS- I apologise for my spelling and grammar- although you may like to consult [[Irony#Cultural_variation this page] ;-) Cheers, Badgerpatrol 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry, but I just had to have a bit of fun at your expense. I didn't really mean I thought your comment wasn't noteworthy. It's all just one big mixup it seems. Thanks, --naryathegreat | (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I did you! No worries, Badgerpatrol 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ordinal vs. Cardinal (Grade Naming System)

The first paragraph of "School Grades" sounds pretty absurd, could someone please name a country where ordinal numbers are not well understood?

It's not a matter of whether it's well-understood, it's a matter of what is customary. In Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, just to name a few, they prefer cardinal numbers. They can understand ordinal numbers but to them it sounds weird, just as using cardinal numbers for grades sounds a little strange to Americans. Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience, so we need to make it clear that us Americans prefer "fourth grade" and not the other way around, or else those foreigners will think the table is wrong and will keep trying to rewrite it as "Grade 4," "Grade 5," etc. --Coolcaesar 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what they use in Spanish and French-speaking countries, I know ordinal numbers are used in Germany and Scandinavia. I would still suggest rephrasing the paragraph to something like: "The U.S. uses ordinal numbers for naming grades, unlike Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom where cardinal numbers are preferred. Thus, when asked what grade they are in, typical American children are more likely to say "fourth grade" rather than "Grade 4.""

Noone responded so I changed it, but I see that JDoorjam reverted it right back. Please explain why the original wording is better than my wording.

I'm not bothered about the ordinal/cardinal thing, but I would appreciate someone stating just what these US grade numbers represent, because I want to relate them (specifically the output of the Flesch-Kinaid readability test) to the UK education system. My guess is that each US grade is one year of education and that school pupils start in grade 1. That may sound pathetically pedantic - but is it correct? -Norman Paterson, norman@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk

Close. Most (I can't say all) communities in the US call the first year of education "Kindergarten." Kindergarten pupils usually attend school for about 3 hours per day - half the typical "school day." First grade (not Grade One) is then the second year of education, but the first year of full-day classes. Schoop (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who runs community colleges?

California and Illinois have locally funded community college districts (independent of local governments) subject to supervision by a state agency (which is independent of the state university systems). Ohio and New York appear to have placed their community colleges under the supervision of the state university system. Can anyone provide a concrete example to justify the current claim in the article that community colleges are usually run by counties? Otherwise I'm going to change it in a few days.

Also, one more question. Where did community colleges come from in other states? In California, they developed out of junior college programs originally started by school districts, which are subject to loose supervision from the state Department of Education in Sacramento but are independent of local governments. --Coolcaesar 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has responded. I'm changing the article. --Coolcaesar 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph

It says in the second paragraph that 72 percent of students aged 12 to 18 get by the usual sequence, meaning that the remaining 28 percent (which is more than a quarter) gets retained at least once in their education. Does Wikipedia have an article whose subject is being retained?? Georgia guy 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gifted ed.

Do you think it would be appropriate to add something to the extent of "In general, gifted education legislation and funding is lacking or non-existent, with notable exceptions in Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and Oklahoma", or something similar? Gifted education is an important aspect of special education, and I think it deserves at least a passing mention. --Schuyler s. 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't see gifted education as part of special education. My impression was that special education is for people who have difficulty keeping up with their age cohort and gifted education is for people ahead of their cohort.

As for your main point, I agree it deserves special mention, although you should also note that there are many private university-affiliated programs like CTY and EPGY (I have attended both). --Coolcaesar 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd put it under special education because, at the very heart, it is exactly that: "special" education. Out of curiosity, what campus and session did you go to when you did CTY? I keep running across fellow CTYers on wikipedia... its kinda' funny. --Schuyler s. 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

United States compared to other countries

I once read that the one reason for the United States dismal international ranking in the field of education is that the students weren't motivated to put forth any effort on the tests. Does anyone know anything about this?74.67.231.110 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What tests do they use? If they don't use the SATs I don't think most people know about these exams, whatever their names are. 68.39.174.238 23:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Washington

"Top public universities such as the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington, Seattle, (sometimes referred to as "Public Ivies") are also held in very high regard and actually perform better than various elite"

In our examples of "public ivies", the University of Washington should not be listed because there is no consensus on its status as a "public ivy". It makes no sense to list UW when the other three institutions have consistently been ranked among the top five public U.S. universities. Every single major ranking as UW separated from the pack. For example, the The Times Higher Education Supplement has UW behind UT Austin, Michigan, UCLA, UCSD, Illinois, Purdue, Penn State, and Wisconsin Madison. In the Shanghai Jiaotong study, UW is ranked behind UCSD, UCLA, and Wisconsin. UW is hardly an uncontroversial example. It is also excluded from the Moll book that coined the term "Public Ivy". This is not to mention the U.S. news ranking... UCLA would be a less controversial choice. --Jiang 05:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I had done a fairly thorough review on this before I made my comments. We should restrain from picking and choosing only rankings that support our argument. I am not from UW (please see my profile). So, I hope I can be a fair judge. If you compare the various rankings, UW is among the top. Albeit, the whole ranking issue is very controversial at best. We can analyse further the credibility of each ranking and just select the ones that have the least criticism. This will easily exclude the typical magazine rankings, such as US News and THES. Furthermore, the discussion is about research here and not undergraduate. The Top American Research Universities from UoF is the reference. On Public Ivy, UW is included in the updated list of Public Ivy by Greene (2001), along with other universities. Times are changing and we just have to strive to be open-minded. Thanks for your critical thoughts, however. The community appreciates that --mcks

We can't just pick a single ranking (Florida) and discredit the others: this is asserting our own POV and "picking and choosing only rankings that support our argument". Anyway, if we were to rely on a single ranking (which we should not), we would be listing Berkeley, Michigan, Washington, and UCLA. We should avoid drawing our own conclusions here, based on the Wikipedia:no original research rule. What do other people include in a list of public ives?

If we going to provide an example here of public ivies, it is better to take it from an inclusive list, because a list of examples naturally includes ommissions. I don't see the need of including UW here. Why UW and not UCLA? --Jiang 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jiang. After all, it is UW whose ex-deans seem to be committing suicide lately! But on a more serious note, UW is simply not in the same category as UCLA in terms of the prominence of its faculty or alumni. People from outside America may not recognize UW right away, while anyone who watches movies or news broadcasts anywhere in the world has heard of UCLA. --Coolcaesar 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

POV is a personal opinion that is not backed by any reference. That was certainly not the case there. Given the various rankings, I tried to logically highlight the relevant one. Popularity is another debatable issue. G-factor attempted to measure that and it is more scientific and objective than certain personal beliefs. The latter inclines more towards POV than the former. The citation of UW ex-dean can be considered ad-hominem but I trust that you were just joking. - mcks

POV can be either referenced or unreferenced: the referencing of opinions is not relevant; they're still opinions. your attempt to "highlight" the "relevant" ranking is original research and personal bias. Again, I don't see the point of replacing a less controversial choice with a more controversial one.--Jiang 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

your comments is controversial too. the use of reference is what not constitutes as original research. if we put ucla, we should include UW to make it more inclusive then and end this dispute one and for all. mcks

Agree with mcks. UW should be included. To quote wikipedia guideline, "In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact." and "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above." It seems mcks has tried earnestly to be open-minded, cool-headed and constructive in this discussion. Published, professional research is so much more credible than certain individual opinions. --155.14.66.29 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Any choice can be made controversial. That's why Wikipedia encourages relevant reference. --155.14.66.29 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not just about referencing: it is about including and attributing all the major viewpoints in a dispute. According to the neutral point of view guidelines, NPOV-speak would read something like, "The University of Washington is sometimes regarded as a public ivy. Though it was excluded by Richard Moll in his 1985 book The Public Ivys: America's Flagship Undergraduate Colleges, which coined the term "public ivy," it is included in Greene's Guides (published in 2001), which has a more inclusive list. The University of Washington's ranking among top American universities varies. According to a survey done by the University of Florida, UW ranks third among American public research universities. According to a ranking of "world universities" done at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, UW is the 5th best public American university. UW ranked as the 11th best public American university in the 2005 The Times Higher Education Supplement. In the 2006 U.S. News and World Report ranking of colleges, UW placed 12th among public universities and 45th in its overall category of universities."

Footnoting a single ranking to justify the label "public ivy" does not do it. The connection, that UW's no 3 public ranking in this single survey automatically makes it a "public ivy" is unreferenced and original research. I neglected to put the public rankings in the context of the overall rankings, which needs to be done in claiming that "Top public universities...perform better than various elite, private universities in many measurements of graduate education and research quality "

But we don't need to go into this kind of detail in this article, where we merely want to provide a list of examples. If we want to put in UW, then why not also College of William and Mary, University of Wisconsin Madison, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, UT Austin, and all the others listed by Greene? This list of 20-something would make the article ridiculous. As an alternative, why not just exclude UW because it is disputed? Can't we do without it?--Jiang 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well argued. I concur wholly with Jiang's position. The fact that UW's status is disputed (because rankings put it all over the place) means that it should not be included in a summary list. In contrast, Berkeley's status among public universities is undisputed (after all, Cal has several elements in the periodic table named after it). --Coolcaesar 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Non sense!

New section because of the sheer absurdity of the argument. I disagreed with Jiang! Basically, Jiang is acting like an authority here. In the list of Public Ivy, everybody counts both Green and Moll. To say, UW is "sometimes" Public Ivy also means UIUC is also "sometimes" public ivy. That is utter nonsense! Why don't you say that to UIUC and others and see if they agree. If you are so confident, get all their feedback and publish it. Then we talk. Challenge Green! Eliminate all Green's schools in the Public Ivy section and tell them that they are no longer a public ivy because Jiang thinks that one reference is not enough to qualify as one. Tell everybody that they only count for "sometimes" public ivy. Then we proceed. The topic is about research here. If you don't accept the reference, contact UoF and argue with them. Why don't you cite G-factor where UW ranks high? Again, you must disagree. Then contact them and argue with them. U of Virginia and UCLA also have their ranks lower than UW at some places. Let's start a new section about UCLA then. Dispute it and take it out. Many private unis have lower ranks in SJTU. Why don't you argue it with them and take them out! U Mich is lower than U Wash in SJTU. It is disputable. Why don't you take it? Go and argue with SJTU! To take out something because you guys start a discussion is a cheap trick. Enough with your ego! It's embarassing that even among the public schools, the attitude is still like this. To think that you guys are probably more down to earth. What a shame! We must refer this to the administrator if this continues further! Can't we do without UCLA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.14.66.29 (talk • contribs) .

I have never made an assertion disputing the validity of the rankings, nor have I ever claimed that UW is not a public ivy. I am merely trying to note that there is no consensus on this issue, and possible grounds to dispute UW's status as a "public ivy". It is not the job of Wikipedia to analyze, dispute, or verify the validity of any ranking. It is only our job to place disputed assertions in the context of their originators, adherents, and disputants.

If want to claim that UW is a "public ivy", then the Florida ranking is not a sufficient reference. The ranking does not make this claim. Greene makes this claim, but NPOV rules call for citing Greene, inline, to make this claim. Please verify your assertion that "everybody counts both Green and Moll" in listing public ivies.

Some pages that you might want to refer to before continuing this disucssion: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Jiang 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please let me try to answer the questions. This "ladder" is not absolute, however. Top public universities (sometimes referred to as "Public Ivies"), such as ... <-- click on the Public Ivy. It's already hyperlinked. Sigh ... Is this what America has become? Everybody here is so smart. But, with great power comes great responsibility. Collaboration is often more positive than competition and that's my personal opinion. --Mcks 04:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The point that I am trying to get across (and I think, Jiang as well) is that because Public Ivy is already hyperlinked, there is no need to mention examples of Public Ivies which are debatable because there is insufficient objective evidence of their prestige. By that I mean number of elements in the periodic table, number of Nobel laureates, number of rich and/or famous alumni, size of library system, etc. UW's lack of these things means that it can come close to UC only on rankings that take into account subjective (i.e., non-numerical) factors, such as the quality of primary care teaching in the medical school. If we don't draw a strict line, we will end up importing the entire debate about what constitutes a Public Ivy into the Education article, which would violate a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, plus it would ruin the Education article. --Coolcaesar 05:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

SJTU, UoF have taken into account Nobel Prize, NAS fellows etc. Again, argue with them first. Many private uni don't have any name in the periodic table. Take them out! Ivy League and Little Ivy have examples, yet, they are already hyperlinked. Delete them! --155.14.66.29 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that U of Washington should be removed from the list of public Ivys. But to include UCLA as a public ivy is also academic boosterism (I'm guessing Jiang is a UCLA student or alum). UCLA is certainly an excellent institution, arguably the fourth best public university in the US (and interestingly enough, one of the most highly respected universities in the Asian communities, surpassing the likes of Rice, Northwestern, etc.), but in the east coast (where I live and work), UCLA is still seen as your typical big state university jock school. Of course, one could make the same argument for other top notch public schools that fall below the "Public Ivy" threshold including Texas, UNC-Chapel Hill, and Wisconsin. I agree that the only legitimate public Ivy institutions are Berkeley, Virginia, and Michigan. Teknosoul02 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

U of Washington is listed by Greene as a public Ivy. Moll lists it as an honorable mention. Why don't we just link this sentence to the Public Ivy article--which cites both Greene and Moll--instead of listing them here? This would prevent omissions. I myself went to the U of Georgia, which Green lists as a Public Ivy. However, I don't think it should be listed next to Berkeley, Virginia, and Michigan. Thus, we should just link it to the Public Ivy wikipedia article and allow those who are interested to read. This makes more sense than arguing about inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove all schools in status ladder?

Opinion varies. For objectivity, UW has to be included. Otherwise, we should just remove all schools. Just cite the reference and let each user makes up his/her own mind. --128.208.83.87 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. To delete mention of all schools distorts the "status ladder" section, and renders it almost meaningless. After all, how can one describe the "status ladder"--an influential conception in the American popular mind, which manifests in many ways, e.g. college rankings, etc--without the ladder's 'steps,' (in this case, the individual schools?) Above you cite objectivity as a reason for including the University of Washington in this section... Alas, objectivity does not apply to the "status ladder;" it's an instrinsically subjective subject. :) No offense meant.

This section serves a purpose; namely, to address the current obsession within American culture regarding an educational institution's perceived 'prestige,' and the ramifications of this obsession. Very, very few would argue with the popular, perceived prestige of the following private colleges/universities: Ivies, Little Ivies, Seven Sisters, MIT, Stanford, Duke, Caltech, Northwestern, U. Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. Similarly, few would argue with the popular perceived prestige of California Berkeley, Virginia, and Michigan. California Los Angeles, Washington, and Florida--although each excellent, and certainly far above average regarding research, funding, and calibre of students--do not yet enjoy the same standing in the American popular mind as the aforementioned schools. Perhaps they will shortly, (perhaps within the next ten or so years,) but not yet.

Let us write regarding general public perception, (i.e. the average American) and (as much as possible) without our own particular biases. In this spirit, I vote that we omit the schools that cause considerable controversy. If a school causes great controversy, this indicates that it has not yet achieved the perceived status of the others... (Unless of course, it's a Harvard man disparaging Yale, U. Chicago vs. Northwestern, or Amherst vs. Williams--the traditional rivalries which flare up periodically.) 71.234.216.249 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the status perceptions are regionally linked. I agree with you about every assertion you made but three. In areas outside of the Midwest, Northwestern is often confused with Northeastern University, Michigan is not that well-known except as a member of the Big Ten and for its affirmative action controversy, and Los Angeles is definitely on the way up due to its regular media appearances (CSI, Numbers, the Nutty Professor, etc.) and the quality of its graduate schools. Of course, I am sure that Wikipedians based in the Midwest would probably vehemently disagree.

Anyway, I agree that the Ivy League, Berkeley, Virginia, Johns Hopkins, U. Chicago, Caltech, Stanford, Duke, and the Seven Sisters are all top-tier schools, with the private schools generally ahead of the public schools on average, but the public schools are better in a variety of specific areas. Can we all agree on that much?--Coolcaesar 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, Coolcaesar. Los Angeles is definitely on the way up. Michigan is best known for its athletics programs. As mentioned, Florida and U. Washington are on the way up. Also, WUSTL is on the rise.

Regarding Northwestern: its name engenders confusion with various schools, (Northeastern, as mentioned, various Northwestern colleges, Northwestern State Unis, etc.) Regardless of this name confusion, I think you fight an uphill battle if, indeed, you argue that Northwestern should not be included among the top schools on the "status ladder." Remember, most Americans concerned with the "status ladder" exhibit more than a passing interest in college rankings, (which helped to codify the "status ladder" in the first place, and continue to influence public perception.) Over the past twenty years, USNews (the most popular Uni rankings in America,) ranked Northwestern's undergraduate program as high as #9, and as low as #14, (currently #12, ahead of the following above-mentioned schools: Cornell, Brown, U. Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, Virginia, etc.) Similarly, its business school has consistently ranked in the top 3, law school in the top 10, and medical school in the top 20. Its journalism program ranks #1. Its endowment totals $4.92 billion--11th largest of all singular universities, (i.e. not 'university systems.') By contast, in its most recent rankings, USNews ranks Northeastern U. in Boston, MA #115--its highest ranking ever; its endowment totals $1/8 of Northwestern's, despite a much larger enrollment, and none of its graduate programs rank similarly with Northwestern's. In other words, those concerned with the "status ladder" know Northwestern's status, (as opposed to Northeastern's, to continue your example.) Other than potential name confusion, it's difficult to argue that Northwestern does not belong in this "prestigious" group. No offense meant, Coolcaesar. LuMas 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do here is to go with what is citeable. Find sources, people. I agree that Coolceasar's statement is accurate, but I am less certain that reliable citations can be found to say Ivy > other private schools > public schools. I'm certain that citations can be found regarding holding the Ivy League in high regard, and perhaps some references to "Ivy Plus"; I'd also suggest looking for references to the reputation of Public, Southern, and Little Ivies, both because they are terms in somewhat common use, and because, more pragmatically, we can wikilink to them. I imagine this section will ultimately say that Ivies are held in high regard, though a number of other institutions are highly ranked, with a wiki link to the Princeton Review ratings. If we're going to make statements about prestige, though, we need to have some of those adorable ref numbers to go along with them. JDoorjam Talk 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, JDoorjam. This article should not make "Ivy > other private schools > public schools" distinctions. Rankings do not support this, after all. MIT, for example, enjoys "perceived prestige" (rankings, endowment, etc.) equal to, if not surpassing most Ivies. To my mind, liberal arts colleges compose a different category than the "Ivy plus" (as you write) research universities--different social environment, educational focus, etc. This article might deal with public universities differently as well--not as 'less than' "Ivy plus" institutions, but as a distinct group. Regarding "Southern Ivies"--do any of these rank with the private "Ivy plus" institutions listed, (e.g. in the USNews Top 15?) Regardless, I agree with you, JDoorjam. Citations needed. LuMas 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam asked me to look at this. I've only taken a quick peek. This is an interesting example of the kind of frustrating material that Wikipedia has a lot of. It really seems to me to be reasonably well written and accords pretty well with my own (non-expert) impressions. The status ladder exists, and is as described.

But.

It is a piece of original work. I haven't looked at the edit history to see whether it is a collaborative, consensus work, but in any case it is not firmly anchored to source citations of reliable sources.

Oddly enough, I have less of a problem with the naming of individual schools than with the content as a whole. Although citations need to be found, it should be trivially easy to find citations supporting statements such as "the United States' most well-known university is Harvard." After all, in 1893 Baedeker's guide called Harvard "the oldest, richest, and most famous of American seats of learning," and I suspect a few other sources have said similar things since then. Similarly, the articles on the Public Ivies and the Little Ivies contain fairly good sources for the list of schools that are included therein.

I think the section needs to be liberally laced with "citation needed" tags, and if it can't be supported by good citations it should go.

The first one that needs a citation is the lead sentence: "American universities and colleges seem status-conscious compared to their foreign counterparts." I'm speaking from genuine ignorance here, but I wonder whether this is true, or whether it was written by someone from the U. S. who is more aware of the subtleties in the U. S. I remember acquaintances from the Netherlands who insisted that the Netherlands did not have anything resembling the regional differences in accent and social status the U. S. has. We asked why, then, they were always teasing a colleague who was Frisian. And we pressed them on whether Dutch news broadcasters sounded like they came from a certain place in the Netherlands and they instantly said that news broadcasters sounded like they came from Amsterdam...

I honestly don't see any need for major surgery. I think social realities should be acknowledged. But what can't be sourced must eventually go. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

P. S. The current section, like some other discussions, sort of tap-dances around the issue of social elitism and implies that there is only one kind of status or prestige involved. The influence of the WASP establishment has declined greatly since the Vietnam War, but I doubt that it is entirely gone. I doubt that the conspicuous participation Yale graduates in the White House and as presidential candidates during the past decade is wholly explained by Yale's academic status. And as far as I know, the likes of Porcellian have not closed their doors... whether a Phi Beta Kappa key or a Porcellian pig is more valuable to a job-seeker, I wouldn't presume to know.

I think the Ivy > other private schools > public schools is valid. It is not based on academic rankings. There's good evidence, in my opinion, that U. S. News and World Reports consciously jiggers its rankings to include seemingly objective factors that are in fact stand-ins for the social factors that are important to students and their families. That is, the reason why Harvard, Yale and Princeton occupy the top three slots in 2006 is because they do occupy the top positions in the status ladder... which is not the same as the academic rankings ladder.

P. S. Hey, about that opening sentence: "American universities and colleges seem status-conscious compared to their foreign counterparts." Well, what about Asian schools? It just occurred to me that I've been reading for decades about the intense pressure in Japan, and you regularly read about students committing suicide because they didn't do well in entrance examinations. Well, for example, here's one: Stress high during China's student exams, "A teenager's suicide after being barred from a key high school exam for not tying back her hair underscores the intense pressure on millions of Chinese who began taking annual college entrance tests Wednesday." I can't imagine this happening in the U.S. If students are killing themselves over college admissions, I'd bet that it also matters which college they get into.

Come to think of it, surely, in the UK graduating from the University of Birmingham isn't the same as graduating from Oxford. How do you measure the difference in rung height between the University of Birmingham and Oxford? Is it greater or less than the difference between the University of Michigan and Harvard? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Dpbsmith. Asian universities--particularly those in China and Japan--exhibit status-consciousness similar to those in the U.S. Furthermore, in my experience, having attended university in both England (Oxford) and the U.S., I can attest to similarities regarding the "status ladder" in these two countries. However, compared with American universities, fewer English universities occupy the 'top tier' in the English public mind, (25 or so in the U.S., compared with 5 or so in England.) In the past ten years, Australian universities have attempted to codify their fledgling "status ladder" by forming 'The Group of Eight', Australia's answer to the 'Ivy League'. In other words, "status ladders" exist in many countries, and do not seem unique to the U.S. Conversely, however, many universities throughout mainland Europe, (and even in Canada, to a lesser degree,) do not exhibit similar status-consciousness; for example, universities in Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, etc. To address this in the "status ladder" article, perhaps remove the first sentence?

Also, to address comments regarding the "status ladder" and the WASP establishment--at this point, few American colleges/universities remain strongly associated with it in the popular mind, (the Big Three, certainly--Havard, Yale, and Princeton--also Dartmouth, the Little Three, and Wellesley.) In the abscence of an hegemonic, American social elite, graduation from one of these institutions seems to create a (very slight) social distance between oneself and others, (although admittedly, any lingering WASP-associated 'magic' seems to wear off a few years following graduation.) Furthermore, this WASP-associated 'magic' becomes increasingly less relevent as the college-rankings-obsessed, Generation Y enters the workforce. A new 'Top 15' magic has replaced the traditional WASPy ideal; for example, institutions traditionally unassociated with WASPs, (e.g. CalTech, Stanford,) seem just as "prestigious" to Generation Y as those traditionally associated with WASPs. College rankings (particularly those in USNews and Princeton Review) have influenced this young generation to such a degree.

Lastly, let us not overestimate the importance of the American "status ladder." It seems to hold sway while 1) applying to college, 2) bragging about where you went to college, (or where your son/daughter went to college,) 3) applying to postgraduate professional schools or Master's/PhD programs 4) applying for a job during the first several years following graduation from one of these schools. Ultimately, one must prove one's own merit, although graduating from one of these schools helps (slightly) toward doing so, initially. Of course, this is just my opinion. Does it seem accurate? Now I will attempt to find citations for the article. 71.234.216.249 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent debate, guys. However, throwing in my two cents here. I think the only difference between an elite, prestigious university is NOT the quality of education, it's in the BRAND NAME only. In response to Dpbsmith, while I respect your opinion and can definitely see where you're coming from, one can certainly get a great education from Wichita State if one puts in the effort. Obviously, Harvard and the Ivy League have lots more cache than Wichita State, but a Wichita State grad who demonstrates drive and the commitment to succeed will go far in life.

I think the quote about grads from elite universities giving jobs to other grads from elite universities sums it up perfectly. I also agree that networking is better at elite schools. However, speaking from anecdotal experience (and as one of those average joe state U graduates), I have worked with plenty of Ivy League grads, and frankly speaking, they're not as good as they claim. in fact, almost all of my ivy League co-workers have serious sense of entitlement attitude, thinking that they can get what they want b/c of their Ivy League pedigree. Many do not demonstrate what it means to earn your way through your job. I admit this has soured my view of Ivy Leaguers a bit, but at least I have seen first-hand that Ivy League graduates (generally) are not really "better" for the job force than the typical state U grads. Thanks. Teknosoul02 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes and references for "status ladder"

Just a holding area for stuff as I find it. Others feel free to add to it. To be selectively incorporated in that section at some time... perhaps. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"He, no Ivy League sophisticate but a broad-shouldered hero of State U, a representative of the common people..." (in reference to a 1939 Collier's cover illustration). Oriard, Michael (2004). King Football: Sport and Spectacle in the Golden Age of Radio and Newsreels, Movies and Magazines, the Weekly, and the Daily Press. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0807855456. p. 176

"Mothers, counselors, 'academic' teachers, and peers may encourage him to shoot for the distant Ivy League or Stanford, debt-conscious fathers, teammates, phys. ed teachers, and other loyal alumni to head for Proximate State U." Axtell, James (1999). The Pleasures of Academe: A Celebration and Defense of Higher Education. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803259387., p. 120.

"By the end of this period, the well-bred WASPS no longer dominated the prestige schools and they made up just an infinitesimal slice of the educated class. The elite schools had preserved their status. The proportion of Ivy League graduates in Who's Who has remained virtually constant throughout the past 40 years." Brooks, David (2001). Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0684853787. p. 30

Then there's this one. Oh my dear, oh my goodness. No, I don't think I'll use it in the article. Among other things I believe it's self-published. But you can hardly beat it for plain-speaking articulation of a point of view:

"'Ivy League' universities cost a lot of money. Academically, do you get a better education there? No. There are just as good, or better professors at state-run institutions of higher learning. Then why do folks pony up? Because the big-bucks jobs go to the Ivy-League[sic] grads. It works! ... A degree from Brown, from Yale, from Hah-vahd, while academically no better than one from Indiana U. or Wichita State, is FAR MORE MARKETABLE. Graduates of these 'exclusive' (meaning they exclude folks) schools higher other grads, for big-ticket jobs. The 'elites' go to the 'elite' schools, so a degree from one of them is seen as a badge of 'elite' status. You wanna job? The fiction of 'superiority' has become the self-perpetuating fact of 'preference.'" Nebergall, Peter J. (2000). Guerrilla Anthropology. Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 0738838012. p. 67.

Nothing against Wichita State, mind you, but to say Harvard is academically no better than Wichita State is, I think, stretching it... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would you say that the "status ladder" includes all schools with SAT scores above 1400, (for the new test, approximately 2000?) Regarding universities, this seems to divide the wheat from the chaff, (so to speak, of course,) no? 71.234.216.249 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, because I don't think the "status ladder" is based exclusively on academic merit. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Shirley Levin, of Rockville, Maryland, who has worked as a college-admissions consultant for twenty-three years, concurs: 'Never have stress levels for high school students been so high about where they get in, or about the idea that if you don't get into a glamour college, your life is somehow ruined.'" Gregg Easterbrook (October, 2004). "Who Needs Harvard?". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved 2006-07-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

"Admissions mania focuses most intensely on what might be called the Gotta-Get-Ins, the colleges with maximum allure. The twenty-five Gotta-Get-Ins of the moment, according to admissions officers, are the Ivies (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale), plus Amherst, Berkeley, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Pomona, Smith, Stanford, Swarthmore, Vassar, Washington University in St. Louis, Wellesley, and Williams." (ibid)

"'"Any family ought to be thrilled to have a child admitted to [the University of Wisconsin at] Madison, but parents obsessed with prestige would not consider Madison a win,' says David Adamany, the president of Temple University." (ibid)

"Today an Ivy diploma reveals nothing about a person's background, and favoritism in hiring and promotion is on the decline; most businesses would rather have a Lehigh graduate who performs at a high level than a Brown graduate who doesn't." (ibid)

"'There's a clear benefit to the top fifty or so colleges,' [Caroline Hoxby] says.'Connections made at the top schools matter. It's not so much that you meet the son of a wealthy banker and his father offers you a job, but that you meet specialists and experts who are on campus for conferences and speeches. The conference networking scene is much better at the elite universities.'" (ibid) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• In What's the value of an Ivy League education? the Dartmouth Review describes a (relatively) scientific study (by Krueger and Dale) on the subject. It addresses 'meritocracy' at Nation's elite schools. [4] The article describes the following schools as elite: "Yale, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Williams, and Swarthmore." Researchers conclude, "It's not the school that has the magic touch... It's the students.” LuMas 19:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Much has changed in who now constitutes 'the chosen' -- the elite prep schools, for example, can no longer count on a high proportion of their graduates getting into the Big Three. 'As a consequence, deep apprehension about college admissions now extends to the highest reaches of the upper class,' Karabel writes. But much remains the same. 'At the same time, the children of the working class and the poor are about as unlikely to attend the Big Three today as they were in 1954. It is no exaggeration to say that the current regime in elite college admissions has been far more successful in democratizing anxiety than opportunity.'" Jeffrey Kittay (2005-10-30). [ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701733.html "The Ivy Curtain"]. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-07-14. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of View Problem

In one section of the article, the following quote appears. I do not think that it follows the PoV requirements, but I'm wondering what other Wikipedians think.

“ However, America continues to develop the well rounded student and does not specialize students into their strongest areas of intellegience until college, where the student may decide what their specialty may be. ”

Geoking66 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement is poorly written ("ability" would be a better word than "intelligence" in this context) but as a factual assertion it is roughly correct. It needs some editing, though. --Coolcaesar 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the factual assertion. It has been my understanding that it rather places more emphasis on extracurricular activities, not on actual specialisation. For comparision-purposes, in an Austrian Gymnasium (public school, 8 years, 4 years junior from 10 to 14, 4 years senior from 15 to 18. A typical school week can range from 30 hours a week in the beginning to up to 38 hours at the end. The school ends with the Matura which is required for university enrollment) you usually have the following subjects over 8 years: English, German, one other language (two in the case of some schools), maths, biology, physics, chemistry, geometry (two years in all schools, some schools offer another two years), physical education, religious education (only for students with a denomination, but you can opt out with your parents permission if under 14, or on your own authority if you are older than that), geography and economy (combined subject), art, musical education (can choose betwen art and musical education for the final two years), history and civics (combined subject), philosophy (1 year), psychology (1 year).

In the last 3 years you have to choose an additional 8 points (1 point = 1 hour class every week, the points can be freely distributed over the 3 years) worth of classes; which classes you can pick depends on the school.

There are different school types, so there might be a variance in the selection of subjects. There are other, more specialized kinds of schools also ending with the Matura, but they are only attended by a only a smaller part of an age-group. The german Gymnasium is somewhat different, but the choice of subjects is in large parts the same as in Austria.

--Wollviech 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that many European countries have vocational training at the secondary school level which is generally unavailable in the United States. Most American high schools are overwhelmingly directed towards producing future undergraduates who will go to college and earn four-year bachelor's degrees. However, most schools in turn also fail to serve the large number who will not attend college. In turn, they either drop out, or they limp along until they get their high school diploma. Then they attend a two-year vocational school to get a certificate in a technical field they can earn a living in, such as automotive repair technician or cosmetologist.

For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger likes to talk about the fact that he took a class in sales skills in high school in Austria, where he acquired basic business skills that in turn enabled his successful career. Such practical classes are extremely rare at the high school level in the United States.

There are experimental high school programs in which one can acquire useful certificates like a Cisco Systems technician certification, but those are rare. Most high school "shop" and computer lab classes cover very basic material, and are not sufficient preparation for real-world work. --Coolcaesar 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vocational training in secondary education is usually done either in a form of a 3-years apprenticeship where one does learn the trade on the job and earn a little bit of money. Schooling is only secondary here and usually done in a blocked way. However, most young people that choose this track usually 'only' has attended 4 years of Secondary School. (If said in the context of education in german-speaking countries, Secondary School should be understood at a 4-year school that finishes when you are 14, not a 8-year highschool) Approx. 60% of an age-group choose this track.

There are also higher vocational-technical schools, which provide an education considered on the same level as a Gymnasium. They have a 5 years-programm that offers vocational training and require that the student either graduated the junior-part of the Gymnasium or a Secondary School. However, only a small minority of like 10% of an age-group attend such schools.

However, by far the largest part of the pupil that wish to enroll at a university attend a Gymnasium, which primary purpose is to a) provide a general education and b) prepare for university. Vocational training is rather irrelevant and not expected of that kind of school. About 30% of an age-group attend this kind of schools; these 30% account for approx. 80% of all university students. There are 3 main-branches of this school: 'Regular', focus on a humanistic education, with Latin in the 3rd to 8th year, plus another langauge from the 5th to the 8th year (either a contemporary language or ancient greek); 'Science', with focus on maths and natural sciences. Mandatory second foreign language (or Latin) from the 5th to the 8th year, as well as either projective geometry or increased biology and ecology-courses in the 7th and 8th year. 'Economy': Additional economy- and math-classes; however, the math thought here differs from the one taught in the 'Science'-branch and has a heavy emphasis on requirements in the field of economy. All 3 branches also teach among other subjects chemistry, biology, history, civics, physics, psychology, philosophy, music, literature and arts.

--Wollviech 08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a problem in that comment as well (See "dubious statement" below). Since it's been there since ATLEAST August 2006 and nothing's been done to fix it, I am going to remove it. 68.39.174.238 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about Literacy Rates

In the third paragraph of this article, it says the US has a 99.9% literacy rate. In the infobox, it goves the figure at 97%, while in the fourth paragraph, it says the literacy rate is an ambiguous "84-98%". Should this be fixed, or am I missing something (or has this already been talked about)? Atb129 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Atb129, I noticed this as well the 99.9 figure was clearly wrong, so I checked the UN report and found that this was the "Education Index", not the literacy rate. I changed the article to reflect that fact, but didn't remove it altogether. I think it probably could be, though, since the "Education Index" is probably a pretty useless number without some context. -- P. Webb

• • Yeah thanks, that cleared it up a lot, although it still seems to read a little ambigous. Atb129 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the literacy figures quoted at this time (99% for men and women) ... because they collide with everything I've heard and been told for decades. There needs to be a couple of credible scientific sources for this incredible claim, instead of the CIA Factbook.
A citation in the article (US DOE) gives a 98% MINIMAL literacy rate (is that the standard?) and a 14% "Below Basic" rating. Again: I doubt that number. Twang (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you should do some actual research instead of relying on something you heard 20, 30, or 40 years ago? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.20.209 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Admission criteria for U.S universities

What are the criteria U.S universities use to admit undergraduate students ?

Just as a comparison, in England, on top of a minimum of 11 years of compulsory schooling (grades 1-11), students who want to pursue a university degree are required to go first through two additional years of pre-university schooling (grades 12 and 13, commonly known in the UK as the sixth form). In order to be admitted into a university, sixth-form students need at least 3 A-Level certificates, which can be obtained by getting an overall aggregate passing grade in a series of national exams that are written and graded by independent exam boards and taken respectively at the end of grades 12 and 13. In general, students take 4 or 5 subjects in year 12, getting so-called preliminary AS-level certificates, and then drop to 3 subjects only in year 13 to get full A-level certificates. A university may require then that, on top of the 3 minimum A-level certificates, the student hold for example an additional contrasting AS-level certificate on a different subject.

A-Level certificates have an associated letter grade classification (A, B, C, etc.) which is based on the student's final mark as a percentage of the maximum possible points that can be achieved in a given subject (e.g. > 80 % would be a grade A, 70-80 % a grade B, and so on). Most universities set then a minimum qualification criterion to admit students. For example, in top universities like Cambridge or Oxford, the minimum required combination for most intended majors would be grades A/A/A respectively in 3 specific subjects X,Y,and Z. Since all students take either the same or equivalent A-level exams, the grades on their certificates can be directly compared irrespective of the particular school they attended during sixth-form. However, since the number of candidates meeting the minimum qualification cutoff tends now to be higher than the available places in the freshman class, universities have to use additional criteria for selection. That includes most often personal interviews with candidates and, quite frequently for the more competitive majors, requiring that candidates take additional aptitude tests (like TSA, BMAT, LNAT, STEP, etc.). More recently, in order to better assess a candidate's strenght or weakness in specific areas, universities like Cambridge and Oxford have also begun to look at the marks achieved in each unit taken by the student in the 2-year A-level program, as opposed to taking only the final certificate letter grade into consideration.

Is the U.S. system any similar to what I described above for the UK ? If not, how does it differ ? Thanks. 200.177.5.144 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See College admissions in the United States.--Coolcaesar 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious statement

I find the statement at the end of "Competitiveness" very questionable; it sounds like it's trying to refute previous, cited, statements with an uncited one. 68.39.174.238 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

new history article

I have started a new article on History of Education in the United States. It will be much longer than the history section here, and have a useful bibliography. Rjensen 03:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Table of years

In the last year, the fairly clear descriptive table that was in this article has been replaced with a coloured table that groups years into different educational establishments. It gives each year a grade. The table needs a descriptive key to make it work. Are the abbreviations some form of US standrad nomenclature? If so could someone produce a reference to a definitions page (eg a US government page or ...). (((Meanwhile I have put Freshman/Sophomore/Junior/Senior into the table. These terms are incomprehensible to most non-US folk and must be clearly explained for general discussions about US education to be understood.))) -- SGBailey 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Two Majorities

In the curriculum issues section, it said that "A majority of people in the United States support evolution, a majority also supports creationism." I am paraphrasing a bit, but it did say that there is a majority of people who advocate evolution, and a majority that advocates creationism. I changed it so that it now says that a majority advocates evolution, but many advocate creationism. I am not sure though what the majority is though. If someone does no which side has more supporters, please change what I wrote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.0.150 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

competitiveness

"In the subject of teaching in the United States, many other countries criticize the fact that American students learn very little about the world outside America. This has long been the subject of a section on Australian ABC comedy The Chasers War on Everything called "Firth in the U.S.A". Charles Firth attempted to pass off well-known historical world landmarks as Australian, such as the Leaning Tower of Pisa and Mount Rushmore. All those interviewed believed him."

I moved this from history to competitiveness. It looks like that's where it was intended to be. I don't think it should be included in the article, though. It says that it is a fact that American students learn very little about the world outside America, then it goes on to give worthless supporting evidence. The evidence given is anecdotal, unscientific and could be easily manipulated by the show's producers. They could simply not include the Americans who knew the correct answers. Also, it looks like a plug for this tv show. It might be worth keeping to describe a belief among non-Americans that Americans are uneducated about the rest of the world, though. 67.168.61.168 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate

This article completely misses the point of the International Baccalaureate, which is obviously (look at the name) not a part of the American educational system.

Actually, unsigned participant, a few American schools are offering such programs. (SEWilco 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

The current table of grades makes no sense

I am challenging the following edit: [5]. On 30 October 2006, User:Lordmetroid switched the article from what was previously an accurate and very readable table of grades to the predecessor of the very strange grade table in the article. The current table is highly inaccurate and constitutes original research in violation of Wikipedia official policy Wikipedia:No original research. NO ONE in the United States uses the abbreviations given in that table (e.g., H10 for the high school sophomore year). The ONLY grade that is routinely abbreviated to a letter by Americans is kindergarten, which is abbreviated to K as in K-12.

If no one defends the status quo, I'm reverting back to the original table in two weeks. --Coolcaesar 08:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree; I haven't encountered the abbreviations in that table either. They appeared in the article Education in Sweden, and proposed but not included for Japan (Talk:Education in Japan#Template:Education infobox). A global classification would be nice if there is one; I see some universities consider some countries to measure the equivalent of a U.S 12th grade education after 1-2 years of university or passing a test. (SEWilco 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Okay, I'm going to fix the table now. --Coolcaesar 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What is K16 study?

Could somebody possibly add an explanation of K16 study in the opening section. Presumably the term is obvious to someone in the US but is meaningless to everyone else. I can find no Wiki link for K16. It sounds as though it ought to be a new incarnation of the dog K-9 from Doctor Who! Also I am totally perplexed by the sections on grades and grading scales. You need to explain these concepts more fully bearing in mind that most countries don't use the grade system. Age equivalents would be helpful in the text for non-US readers. (See the article on Educational stages for some examples.) Dahliarose 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think someone meant K-12 + 4 college, but that was wrong because the figure includes graduate students. Fixed. The Census Bureau source actually used words to describe the levels of study. (SEWilco 16:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm still confused. What is K-12 +4 college? What is a graduate school? Is it the same as a high school (presumably up to age 18) or is it the equivalent of a university (up to age 21)? Dahliarose 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Education through 12th grade, 4 years of college for an undergraduate degree, and any graduate school after that first college degree. (SEWilco 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I've now answered my own question as I've discovered that there is an article on graduate schools which explains what they are (a postgraduate institution which seems to be specific to the US, hence my confusion). I've added the appropriate Wiki link so that other readers will be able to understand the term. Dahliarose 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Grading scale

This section needs some further explanation as it is somewhat baffling for non-US readers. The tables seem to reflect some type of marking scheme but when are children given these marks? Are the grades based on internal school examinations or externally marked examinations or are they based on some form of continuous teacher assessment? Are children given grades every week, every month, every term or just at the end of the school year? Dahliarose 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Is that better? (SEWilco 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

That is an improvement but it still only makes sense when read in combination with the article on report cards. I think the main article should make it clear that these gradings are based on teacher assessment (if I've understood correctly). I think it might make more sense too if the whole section on grading scales could be combined with the section on standardised tests so that a clear explanation is given of the internal and external tests. Both sections should really come before the section on extracurricular activities. Dahliarose 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The grading section is out out of place, and is helpful as a guide toward expected achievement levels, but because such grading is used continuously it probably doesn't quite belong within a standardized exam section. But that depends upon the phrasing and context. Perhaps by moving the testing sections ahead of extracurricular, this brief section on general grading can server as a segue to extracurricular activities also. There is a connection between grades and extracurricular activities, as many schools require a passing grade in order for have "eligibility" for extracurricular activities. That is, there is an official priority for academic tasks ahead of other activities which the school may be involved in. The eligibility requirements could be mentioned early in the extracurricular section; there would be a flow of grading policies if you're reading the whole article, while the activities section could stand alone as well if it only mentions its related requirements. (SEWilco 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I've now repositioned the section on grading scales so that it comes after the section on the various types of schools, which seems more logical to me. It then runs smoothly into the section on standardised tests. I've rearranged it in a more logical order with the explanation first and the table following. I hope I haven't misunderstood or misinterpreted anything. Dahliarose 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks better. Everyone will fix whatever it needs. (SEWilco 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Kindergarten in the US and the need to state time spent in school

Does this author realize that Kindergarten is just one year in the US? I know that there are some kids who can wait until they are 6, but I've not heard of them waiting until 7 to attend.

Also, there are states where the school system is rigidly age-oriented. The child starts Kindergarten at 5 and can neither be advanced or held-back. It is a belief that it stunts the child socially. These schools offer advanced and remedial instruction by forming classes into smaller groups, thus attempting to provide the child with a challenging, yet not too challenging, education. This was the approach in Louisville, KY.

It is also important to state how many hours per day each grade typically spends in school and with what length of breaks. Our system is totally different than the Germany system, for example. They learn nothing in Kindergarten for 3-4 years. They then go to 1st grade at 6-7 years old. The 1st and 2nd grades last only 4 hours a day. From the 3rd grade on, they are only in school for 5 hours a day. Their new "full-day" schools includes after-school care and school club activities, but no actual increase in instructional time. People here cannot conceive of the idea that we train our kids to function in the work world by sending them for 7-7 1/2 hours per day, after the 6th grade - if this has not changed since my day - and give them 2 15 minute breaks and a 1/2 for lunch.

heatherceana

I'm not sure I fully understand the system in the US. However, most countries don't use a system of grades so the US system has to be explained in a way which can be understood by readers in other countries which means giving ages rather than all these confusing grade references. In many countries kindergarten is in fact part of nursery or pre-school education, so perhaps the US usage of the term kindergarten needs to be more fully explained. Dahliarose 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

minor: second sentence

Shouldn't the second sentence say, "primary and secondary" instead of "elementary and high school"? (because "primary and secondary" includes middle school) Dlkcsmith 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it should probably include middle school as well. Most Americans don't understand the terms "primary and secondary education" because they're not commonly used in American newspapers or on TV (few TV reporters would use such obscure terminology unless they want to get fired). Only well-read intellectuals (that would include me) and people who actually hold college degrees in education are familiar with that terminology. --Coolcaesar 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Wow you mean to tell me theres no criticism of the American public school system??!!....Yeah riiiight somebody's being TOO neutral if you ask me --Blackdragon6 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article really needs a criticism section.

Where the Hell's the criticism?

Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.160.212 (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no section for the enormous amount of Controversey the educational system gets, sounds kinda one-sided, making it seem like the perfect system, which it isnt.....--24.224.25.70 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this too. In the entire article there is no criticism against the education system and nothing to show the community that it is not perfect. In fact, it has a lot of problems like: 1.Problem with homework:Type of homework assigned these days require no real thought and just some busy intellectual work. 2.Problems with teaching style:No effort being taken in classrooms to build a persons overall personality but instead just stuffing students with facts and figures. 3.Sudden level bump in High school to college:The education system takes very easy in middle school and early years of high school. When students go to college, it gets too hard for them and hence resulting in high drop out rates in United States colleges. There are many more issues regarding the grade system and other problems. All this needs to be taken into consideration and added to this article so people realize that the U.S.education system is far from perfect as it is shown in the article.Mr.Whizy (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Postgraduate Education

This article is about education in the United States yet it makes use of the term "postgraduate" in two instances. I thought that this term was used in Europe and that Americans almost always use "graduate school" to refer to post-tertiary education. Is there a reason why this terminology (postgraduate) is being used in this article? It would seem that being consistently accurate would be more importance than trying to vary word choice. 18.96.6.53 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edited Total Budget

Someone provided a link to the NCES data tables which state - "In millions of dollars (141,322 represents $141,322,000,000). For school years ending in year shown below" Yeah, $141,322,000,000 does not equal 1.14 trillion. It equals 141 Billion. Sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.56.244 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarify starting age

The article mentions "varies" and age ranges, but it doesn't specify why. Therefore, I suggest adding in clarification that explains that the starting age (not compulsory -- totally different matter) is determined by either start of school year or calendar year, as well as developmental readiness. For instance, I started school when I was 5 because my birthday came before the start of the school year, and my brother started when he was 6 for the opposite reason. I would add this clarification myself, but I'm having difficulty wording it the way it should be. AbbydonKrafts (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "collegeboard" :
  • [http://www.collegeboard.com/press/article/0,3183,29541,00.html Tuition Levels Rise but Many Students Pay Significantly Less than Published Rates]. The College Board (2003). URL accessed on June 20, 2005
  • [http://www.collegeboard.com/press/article/0,3183,29541,00.html Tuition Levels Rise but Many Students Pay Significantly Less than Published Rates]. The College Board (2003). URL accessed on June 20, 2005.
• "doe2" :
  • [http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln Federal Role in Education]. United States Department of Education. URL accessed on February 16, 2006.
  • [http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln Federal Role in Education]. U.S. Department of Education. URL accessed on February 16, 2006.

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article

I found an interesting article which criticizes the current "teaching to the middle" educational system in the U.S. I'm not quite familiar with this article, so could someone insert it? Thanks. [6] --haha169 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

para under Extracurricular activities

"High school athletic competitions often generate intense interest in the community. Inner city schools serving poor students are heavily scouted by college and even professional coaches, with national attention given to which colleges outstanding high school students choose to attend. State high school championship tournaments football and basketball attract high levels of public interest" This paragraph is not so clear to me grammatically. I think it needs a few punctuation marks. Also what is national attention? Could we consider revising the paragraph. I didn't since I'm only reading this article and am not a person who knows about this subject. Canon46 (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

hi im french —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.153.8 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Need a NPOV fix

For this section:

"Criticism At-risk students (those with educational needs that aren't associated with a disability) are often placed in classes with students with disabilities. Critics assert that placing at-risk students in the same classes as disabled students may impede the educational progress of both the at-risk and the disabled students. US also has an underfunded education system. Student graduation rate from high school is rapidly declining thus endangering the reputation of education received in US by students." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.57.75 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Salaries at colleges

While originating in what is essentially a comic strip, this "article" references real data on teaching salaries in US colleges [7]. Really should be included in article with slightly better reference! Student7 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Home schooling

In addition to the recorded doubts raised by home schooling parents, these need a valid reference and inclusion:

• The assembly line method of public education which is often forced to teach to the "lowest common denominator". This is alluded to but not spelled out
• Children pick up "bad attitudes" from their peers. This is not a automatic result of adolescence as is assumed. Other cultures don't have the teen problems that western nations do. Nearly all home schoolers of any age relate well to adults, and are prepared to interact positively with them.
• Exposure to drugs, alcohol and smoking. This may be in there. This is better enforced at some schools than in others but no school can keep them out entirely.
• Not so much lack of "religious" training, per se, but failure to include moral (or character) training of any sort. Where are today's equivalent of McGuffey Readers? Schools are essentially amoral. No judgment training or character formation whatsoever.
• Reflected in public teachers annoyance with private schools is the necessity in public schools to keep disruptive children in the classroom sometimes making it nearly impossible to teach. Home schoolers avoid these disruptors as well.
• "Teaching by television". Most public schools feel forced to assign children to report on television programs or even watch it in class. Most home schooling parents try to dissuade their children from television influence which they find to be amoral at best, immoral at worst.

Some scholar must have documented these somewhere. Student7 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points, but I do have to opine concerning ethics. As a home-schooled individual, I do not believe it's the school's place to teach ethics or moral fiber-- unless that was a pre-determined desire by the parents, which would make better sense sending them to private schools where character development is part of the curriculum. However, I personally believe that's passing the buck, as parents should be in charge of teaching values and character to their children, regardless of their education decisions. As for the public teachers' annoyance with private education and their instructors; I believe their arguments are rather silly, and is more of an attack on liberty and the parents' right to decide how their children will be educated than any feigned concern for their quality of education received (note in the article how fear was used as the response toward private or home-school educations-- the definition of xenophobia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

States rights

One sentence says, "Unlike most other industrialized countries, the United States does not have a centralized educational system on the national scale". This is a WP:YESPOV statement. It takes the POV implicitly that is is correct to have centralized control. There are several factors that need to be addressed (besides POV): 1) the US is the largest industrialized nation, considerably learger than whichever is second (Japan?). It is reasonable to imagine that a really large system cannot be managed well from one place. 2) By the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights, the constitution leaves to the states all powers not surrendered to the national government [8]. This would include education which is not mentioned in the Constitution. 3) There are 14 states that predate the national government which was the reason for that amendment.

The sentence needs changing. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of that sentence was to explain the situation in the U.S. to foreign readers. Centralized control is actually the case in most countries (e.g., France) and it's important to understand that most non-U.S. readers would assume that to be true of all other countries by default. Keep in mind that from their point of view the U.S. is the weird one or outlier. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a worldwide view. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this can't be done without a reference, but it seems reasonable (then) to explain that a) the US is not homogeneous and b) it is way too large to manage all schools from one centralized location and therefore, for both reasons, the US is therefore different.Student7 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is POV. Perhaps "other industrial nations" could be changed to something more specific, like "other members of the OECD or G8, but I think this is an important distinction between the American school system and those in other parts of the first world and should be mentioned. Your geographical hypothesis is interesting, perhaps a comparison with Canada (which I believe is more like the US system) and Russia (which I believe is more centralised) is in order. TastyCakes (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing US schools to European

As many people know, there are three "tracks" in European and Japanese schools "high school" equivalents (and probably even "middle schools") that I will call a) blue collar, b) clerical and c) college-bound. When comparing American scores with Europeans, the upper "two-thirds" (I don't really know the numbers here) of their schools, the "clerks" and "pre-collegiates" are normally compared against 100% of American attendees. Someone tried to insert language that said this but was deleted for lack of a decent reference. This needs to be re-inserted (with a good reference) if true, and I think it is. Student7 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This article gives some quantified differences. The American school year is shorter (180 days, compared to 195 as the OECD average and over 200 in east Asia), their hours per week are lower (32 hours, compared to 37 hours in Luxembourg, 44 in Belgium, 53 in Denmark and 60 in Sweden). They do an average of 1 hour of homework a day, apparently significantly lower than other countries, particularly Japan and China. TastyCakes (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Crumbling public schools"?

I noticed that the page "crumbling public schools" redirects to this page. While I'm sure that there are a lot of people that would agree with that evaluation, we should probably delete it.

Thylacine222 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes very WP:POV direct. I've rm redirect and asked for a somewhat redundant deletion of the now blank space itself. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Error?

There is a sentence in the curriculum issues section that seems a little weird to me:

Of those, about 1.3 million children speak English "not well" or "not at all."

I think the sentence should be rewritten. I understand it is quoting a citation, but citations are for getting information, not quoting exactly. Sense is more important in my opinion. So I think it should instead say:

Of those, about 1.3 million children do not speak English well or at all.

I'm going to go ahead and change it. If for any reason someone disagrees, feel free to change it back, but I think this is much better. Eatanorange (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety

Safety of children is paramount. This is why NYC has a New York City Police Department School Safety Division. Don't know how to refer to this group in the new section but it is dramatic. Seems to be little else in Wikipedia about this topic.Student7 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

School Grades

I assume you're aware that the image showing 'Education in the United States' is currently covering the table showing similar data, yet in a more understandable way.

Can someone do something about this? --Rockreader-- You REALLY CAN talk to me! WOW!  19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory of Evolution

The article starts to try to discuss the "theory" of evolution, vs "it's only a theory", etc. The article may require that more be said, but, there are several articles already on that sort of thing. For example: Evolution as theory and fact, of course Evolution itself. I would think that allowing those articles to present the facts might be appropriate rather than attempting to present arguments that might be considered trivialized or WP:OR. This also allows the reader to make up her/his own mind. Student7 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Montessori Schools

Possible incorrect header on this particular title, but within the article, changed to read that the US school system "includes over 5,000" schools, as opposed to "leads the world with over" - as it seemed more neutral.86.26.132.255 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The American education system blows, both at the lower and higher levels. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed, including the lack of fluid skills required to pass courses and do well on standardized tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.114.97 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just removing the offending sentence about Montessori schools. Somone who cares can put it in in an appropriate place, but it doesn't belong in the "Statistics" section or that particular paragraph. Removed: " The United States school system includes over 5,000 Montessori schools." --99.96.100.176 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks`

I noticed the addition (move from Textbook) of the list of publishers. I didn't believe it should have gone in with Colleges/Universities in this article.

I thought perhaps a section on curriculum controversies would be in order. It's just a first draft. IF the list of publishers is appropriate, it should go here (or at the end of the article?).. just my thoughts.. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Testing

It just struck me on testing - most schools, even at the secondary level give a "final" exam once. If the taker fails it, s/he does not normally retake the exam, but repeats the course! This is not true in some former (and maybe current) Communist countries. They have "invested" money in you and, through sheer planning genius, know that you "should" graduate. Therefore, you will take the "final" exam up to maybe three times before declaring that you have failed the course. Normally no one fails in college there. Ever. Would need a reference for something that Westerners all take for granted! Student7 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a section on Assessment in the article. Student7 raises a point about testing but I don't think I agree about the current process for passing/failing courses. Many teachers are moving to alternative assessments which reduce or eliminate the reliance on a 'final' exam. Should be on the 'to-do' list! Wikipelli ^Talk 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Obesity Statistic

I noticed the move of the obesity statistic this morning from special ed to elementary and secondary education section. I agree with the editor(s) that noted that it's not a special ed concern and applies to all students. But I've been wondering... why have the stat at all? Though health concerns DO impact a child's education, that's not pointed out along with the statistic. In short, I wonder why the stat is included at all. Might just as well have a statistic that says x% have red hair. Just wondering out loud. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 15:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got a point. The statistic was compiled by school nurses and reported in their professional journal. So if it goes anywhere, it would go here. Otherwise an "orphan" fact. So if we can agree that these school nurses are a reliable source and they have construed this statistic reliably, then presumably they think it affects health. As editor, I cannot go further than the report itself. I don't know what was in their mind when they collected and printed this. In other words, if health can be a school issue, then obesity can be as well.

On the "x% of students have red hair", I guess it would need to be "construed" that this somehow affects scholarship or studying or something. It would also be dependent on who collected it. I mean, why would they pick schools? (That's where the kids are, I know. But the above case is different). Student7 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think there should be some context developed for the statistic. Either health concern effecting learning (which doesn't strike me as a part of a general Education in the US topic) or, possibly, in a section on physical education, which does.Wikipelli ^Talk 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, though students may well have a more profound problem with learning/education which involves self-image. Food obsession as an emotional issue (loneliness, eg). I'm not sure for minors whether these sort out conveniently in the US. Everything is lumped together including ADHD kids, "mainstreamed" kids. This not only effects learning for the victim, but other children as well. This was not given in the ref, so "health" it is. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Division of Grades

I wouldn't really know how to work it in, but it seems to me that the division information (and especially this image) is inaccurate. Where I'm from (Santa Rosa, CA), "elementary school" is (Kindergarten or) 1st Grade-6th Grade, "junior high" is 7th-8th, and "High School" is 9th-12th. While this may be rare elsewhere in the U.S., I feel it ought to be included, if someone can find sources for it. 68.126.149.168 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The only time you will find that grades under the 9th are included in "Junior High" is when the building was constructed to include that grade but it was later dropped because of space requirements. However, the "carving" on the outside of the building makes it desirable to continue the name. Or undesirable to change it. There is no reason to call a school a "junior high" if it does or did not include at least one grade from high school at one time. That is probably worldwide BTW. Student7 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Very late reply here, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying. (By the way, same user here, but a different IP address.) The term "Junior High" isn't actually what I was referring to—around here, the terms "Junior High" and "Middle School" are pretty much interchangeable, although the former is the official term at most schools. What I'm saying is that the chart seems to suggest that sixth grade is part of middle school, unless there is a combined junior/senior high school. I've also heard that some of the middle schools around here used to include ninth grade a few decades ago, but that doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm referring to.

Main Point: For all of the districts in Santa Rosa, sixth grade is a part of elementary school; seventh and eighth are the -only- middle school grades, and high school is always ninth through twelfth. I'm quite sure that this is true for other areas of the U.S., but this article seems to suggest otherwise. (Also note that I'm excluding charter schools, which, here at least, are elementary schools [through sixth grade] with additional, separate classrooms and such for a small amount of seventh- and eighth-graders.)

I realize that this issue is of very little importance, but I thought I should clarify what I meant, in case it helps the article in any way.

69.105.224.31 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Junior High is never "interchangeable" anyplace to Middle School. See above.

2) The text says, "Elementary school includes kindergarten through fifth grade (or sometimes, to fourth grade, sixth grade". That is, the text is deliberately vague on the termination of elementary because schools do change throughout the country and within the same school district sometimes. How would you word it? Student7 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand what's troubling our anonymous visitor. The diagram shows elementary schools that terminate in 6th grade as feeding directly to combined junior-senior high schools, which is NOT the pattern in California (and keep in mind we are talking about the most populous state with a tenth of the U.S. population). Virtually all California elementary schools that terminate in 6th grade feed into a "intermediate school" or "junior high" teaching only the 7th and 8th grades, which in turn feed into a high school teaching the 9th through 12th grades. These junior and senior high schools are NOT combined and indeed are sometimes organized as part of separate school districts with totally different boundaries, with the result that a "class" of students who may have progressed together through grades K through 8 is often broken up among several high schools upon entering 9th grade. So the diagram should be modified to extend the Senior/Junior high school column in the middle so that it lumps over the column representing elementary schools that terminate in 6th grade, but with the end of the junior high block a bit narrower and the senior high block a bit wider to reflect the California pattern of Junior: 7/8 and Senior: 9/10/11/12. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the diagram could be "vague" on promotion to jr high? Say "grade 5-6" rather than just 5? Coolcaesar may have the better idea, but couldn't quite follow it. Probably looks better than it sounds!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar Corrections

Grammar was corrected in the Elementary and Secondary Education section. Kmetherd (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Small Edits in College/University Section -- Bigger Concerns

Hi, I just made a couple of small edits in the college and university section to improve clarity. If I had more time, I would go through and change quite a bit of it. This section has the perspective that American higher education is about four-year institutions (public or non-profit). For a lot of people, this is simply not true: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_187.asp?referrer=report In the fall of 2007, enrollment for four-year U.S. institutions was 11,630,585, while enrollment for two-year U.S. institutions was 6,740,618. It is also not true that all students at two-year institutions plan to transfer to four-year colleges. I don't have time to search for more recent data, but here's an old table from NCES on this subject: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_332.asp. Lbellows (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with "8.3 Criticsm"

This sentence, "The same professor reports that the more money that a state spends on higher education, the slower the economy grows, the opposite of long held notions" in section 8.3 ("Criticism"), seems to be undermining the preceding sentence about "credential inflation" for no apparent reason. It's not a random, interesting fact - it's a deliberate attempt to undermine the previous point. I strongly recommend the removal of this sentence.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.48.195 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, they could be placed in separate paragraphs, I suppose.

The professor was generally critical of higher education. He appears to be saying that 1) public schools are admitting (forced to admit) less than qualified applicants due to grade inflation, 2) they are therefore graduating too many applicants for too few jobs. And 3) spending money on higher education is, in his opinion, hurtful, and does not help, the economy. Public schools generally charge about 20% of actual costs, more in smaller states, and are therefore subsidized 80%, on average, of total costs, out of taxes. He sees no correlation between increased spending on higher eduction and improvement in the local economy.

Which of these points is conflicting? Student7 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Funding for K-12 schools

This section is pretty incoherent; it reads like a copied & pasted mash-up of facts selected without discrimination. A basic outline of how the funding system works would be an appropriate start. Discussion of whether funding is adequate (I assume this is what all the examples & Marva Collins bit are intended as...) would make more sense after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.233.62 (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about "adequacy" adjective. Florida has been rated at the top of the heap in efficiency and achievement but still ranks low in funding. The system which ranked Florida high did have to mention that the funding was poor! Not sure what that means to a bureaucracy that is never satisfied with funding. Student7 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This section is pretty horrible indeed. It gives very little relevant information, and then delves into a discussion that does not belong here. It says nothing about how public education is funded in the US: federal, state, local municipalities? How is it typically divided between these? What are the issues in funding public education? How funding of public education varies across states and population groups? This are the things that should be there.

Instead of giving any useful information, this section goes into a discussion on the effectiveness of public spending in public education, which is presented in an non-NPOV manner, quoting some random anecdotal evidence and highly biased sources such as the Heritage Foundation. I think the entire section should be rewritten and focus on FACTS. The debate on public education should go elsewhere. Salmador (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily schedule - weekly schedule

Minor point - the "average" daily schedule. "six hours" or whatever, needs to be reinserted with a reference. Similarly the five day school week. With a reference. There is a "number of days" thing which would also make sense, since there are only about 180 days required or so, leaving plenty of time off for holidays, in-service, vacation, etc. With a reference! Student7 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

College expectations vs High School instructors beliefs

A paragraph once read:

"Forty-four percent of college faculty believe that incoming students aren't ready for writing at the college level. Ninety percent of high school teachers believe exiting students are well-prepared.(ref)Burlington Free Press. Retrieved September 15, 2009.(end ref) (Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot)(comment)---this is well-documented and well-known. It may be moved, relabeled, and/or re-footnoted but shouldn't be deleted. (end comment)"

The link died, so it was deleted. This isn't discussed anyplace else and should be re-added. Yes. Yes. "With proper citations." Student7 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I inserted four links for this highly publicized piece of information. Perhaps one of those links will last sufficiently long so I won't have to replace it in the near future. Student7 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Drop out rates

This is sort of discussed now. It probably needs discussion before I try to integrate it.

"Drop out rates are a concern in American four year colleges. In New York, 54 percent of students entering four-year colleges in 1997 had a degree six years later — and even fewer Hispanics and blacks did.(ref)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859/(end ref) 33 percent of the freshmen who enter the University of Massachusetts, Boston, graduate within six years. Less than 41 percent graduate from the University of Montana, and 44 percent from the University of New Mexico. (ref)http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html(end ref)" Student7 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Milty?

Another paragraph that was deleted looked uncomfortably familiar and was totally unreferenced. I want to think it wasn't me, but anyway:

"Another issue is that many parents of private school and home-schooled children have taken issue with the idea of paying for an education their children are not receiving. However, tax proponents point out that every person pays property taxes for public education, not just parents of school-age children. Indeed, without it schools would not have enough money to remain open. Still, parents of students who go to private schools want to use this money instead to fund their children's private education. This is the foundation of the school voucher movement. School voucher programs were proposed by free-market advocates seeking competition in education, led by economist Milton Friedman, but have been criticized for damaging public schools, both in funding and diversity."

What's wrong with a little WP:SOAPBOX now and then? Somehow, I am unpersuaded when I delete this sort of thing in other articles, so will need to find something that says this. And WP:RELY as well. I think it is fairly accurate BTW. But sounds a bit WP:OR-ish, I admit. Particularly when it was citation-free. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this serious or is it just a prank?

I quote from the article: "Nearly 6.2 million students between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, including nearly three of 10 Hispanics.[22] This is considered important to address as the incarceration rate for African-American male high school dropouts is about 50 (fifty) times the national average.[23]"

Whoever put this on there should rephrase it. Otherwise, i think it doesn't belong in the article Opinions? Aspergiles (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was responsible. Stuck it in the same sentence as "Nearly 6.2..." and it didn't really belong there. Should have re-read it more closely before adding. I've change this to a separate paragraph with it's own introduction. (The second sentence, re-worded, is valid and has a valid reference). Student7 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Educational Issues

There should be a lot more information on how our educational system play's a role in benefiting those at the top, and how it lays deficient among those who are classified as "minorities" in society. There are many things said about the educational system that conform to the positive side, yet there's not much said about the negative things that cause a vast number of student's to drop out school in high school, and the reasons for that outcome.Jona mart (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should bring that up. In Florida, the Education Department changed the criteria for ranking schools based on achievement. They heavily weighted elevating the scores of minorities. As a result, a high school that was highly ranked nationally for many years was downgraded to "C" because few minorities attended and those that did were already performing pretty well, while elevating another high school "with problems" I won't go into, to an "A" school because they had brought up the horrible scores of their minorities (to less than the former A school, but much higher than they were before). This pleased the new "A" school no end, and annoyed nearly everyone else!

While preventing drop outs is important, I don't see how an article can be written that suggests that any school system can buck environment. They can try, but there are awfully few successes. An article seems more like conjecture or wishful thinking IMO. Often discussed but rarely achieved Student7 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Europe

I am amazed that nothing like [[9]] seems to be mentioned in this article. For outside people it is strange that a institution called high school is offering car repair education. In Europe that is only offered in the lowest part of the 3-part system. To me this looks like the weak point in the whole US system (everybody goes to the same school). Hobbema (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually everybody goes to a different school. It can be a bit bizarre. There is no "US system". The federal government has almost no legal authority over public education. Schools are run independently by the states at the local level. The local districts in each state may offer vocational classes like car repair (or pig farming). Hmmm...This article should probably explain that. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it is easy to jump "parts" in the European system; once classified, you may be stuck. In the US system, late-blooming students can switch from taking car repair to algebra. They usually don't, but it is always an option.

Also, all US students are expected to attend college, which is economically inefficient. Most don't finish, and most schools attended were 80% state-supported. It doesn't make sense, but at least "everyone" gets a chance to pretend s/he will be a business tycoon someday.

And, oh, the US has no jobs to accommodate a 100% college graduate cohort anyway. Who would do the "real" work? Illegal immigrants?

The current system is "educator-driven" and bears little relation to the real world. College costs are rising well above inflation because of "demand."

It's "true democracy at work=totally idiotic."

Yes. There should probably be an article. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource

America Left Behind starting on page 96 in print October 17-23, 2011 issue. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparing to other first world countries

Generally, in the states themselves, Southern states students scores on standardized tests compare worse than Northern states. Until minorities are compared separately. Then many Southern states white students perform "well-enough" compared to Northern, as do their minorities, when compared separately.

I suggest that while Europe, too, has small minorities, they don't affect the scores as much as they do in the US - not that many minority students. I suggest the US would do quite well against Europe with whites only and perhaps with "blacks only" where appropriate.

I suspect that some Asian students do well in either the US or their home country. It would be interesting to have a comparison that separates them out. I have not seen one.

But comparing gross scores against Europe appears blantantly pov. It is not a level playing field. Student7 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

About those library facts

I would suggest reconsidering or at least rephrasing the "Reading and writing habits" section. I feel that these facts taken out of context give an impression that people in America tend to read more than the rest of the world. The source itself states that Americans tend to buy more books due to the lack of borrowing habits and that because of its well established public library traditions people tend to take out more books than in a few mentioned European countries. First of all, in my oppinion, if we are talking about education the number of books taken from libraries in general may not be a relevant fact. Since reading pulp fiction novels do not serve educational purposes in general. Furthermore I feel that one source, especially quoted so poorly, is not enough to tackle the subject of reading and writing habits. Both of which include a lot more than merely three statistical facts taken out of context. Thus I feel that the whole section is off-topic and irrelevant the way it is. I did not dare to make the change but I was hoping to point out my view. Q Plung (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)