What does Belgium have that the United States does not?

It has 16th place in a list of best-educated countries. The United States is in 17th place. Here is the list starting with Finland, the best-educated country in the world:

Finland
South Korea
Hong Kong
Japan
Singapore
UK
Netherlands
New Zealand
Switzerland
Canada
Ireland
Denmark
Australia
Poland
Germany
Belgium
USA
Hungary
Slovakia
Russia

So, my question for you is why can't the richest country in the world come in ahead of Belgium, Poland, and Canada?

One man thinks he knows...

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant suggested on Tuesday that a decline in American education was precipitated by the mass entry of mothers into the work place.

Bryant's remarks, which came during a Washington Post event, immediately stirred controversy amid a recent broad discussion over women's roles as family "breadwinners."

At the Washington Post event, Bryant was asked why he thought the country's educational state had gotten "so mediocre."

"I'm going to get in trouble. You want me to tell the truth? You know, I think both parents started working," Bryant said. "The mom is in the work place."

According to the Post, Bryant immediately tried to clarify his remarks, saying that "both parents are so pressured" in modern family situations. (source)

Now, it's hard to talk about this subject without women getting their backs up because they know that a lot of people are happy to blame one more bad thing on the improvement of the lot of women over recent decades. I heard one female commentator say that Finland has an even higher proportion of families with two employed parents and yet they have a better educated populace than the United States. I wonder, however, how many Finlandish families have latchkey children? Perhaps Finnish children do not leave school for an empty home but instead have some sort of free childcare for the younger children and perhaps activities for the older children.

Anyway, on what do YOU blame the poor performance of American schools.

Tags: education

Views: 1197

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I respect the fact that you hold very strong opinions, Matt, but I have studied the Amorites for far too long to simply take one person's word that all of my work has been for nothing.

This might keep you busy for awhile:

http://www.dalamatiacity.com/eden/the_amorites.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amurru_%28god%29
http://www.eroicifurori.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&am...
http://i-cias.com/e.o/amorites.htm
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amorites

Ya got me there. Five sources anonymous, crackpot or both. I cannot compete with that.

I'm 66. When I was very young, "race" meant white/black/oriental (the latter, renamed "Asian," included Native Americans, who were called "Indians" back then).

Then, the deluge. All of a sudden race wasn't based on skin color but came to language groups (Hispanics, for example), national ethnicities, even religions (because, as one geneticist once said, "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Middle Eastern Jew and an Arab, genetically speaking).

"Race" has become so all-inclusive anymore that it hardly means anything at all due to nor really making a relevant distinction. It's kind of like "thing" in that regard.

I strongly hold the position that there is only one race.

Then, as I said, "race" really stops meaning anything. It's a word in search of a distinction.

I beg to differ - there's the Le Mans and the Indy 500!

OK, but there's still only

One Ring to rule them all. :)

Which means the word race is just a synonym for species.

When two Wongs make a White get back to me.

Did you really have to tell us your age? When we believed you were 20, we thought how brilliant you were - now?

I'm lying, I never thought you were brilliant --

Did you say, "thing"?

Popular usage of race today is no different than it has ever been. An alternative is also a people as in Herrnvolk. Of direct interest is The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand, historian, Tel Aviv University. In the 19th and early 20th century there is plenty of talk of the English, Scot, and French races. It traces back to the invention of nationalism by the Treaty of Westphalia.

The problem with this usage is there is no working definition. The "jewish people" invention is often defended by claiming it can mean ethnic group. I have yet to find anyone who thinks Moroccan Jews eat German potato pancakes while doing Russian circle dance singing Hava Negilah to the tune of Irving Berlin. The only thing which is common to Jews is being a follower of the jewish religion. However it means an atheist cannot be a Jew. For some reason that pisses them off claiming to still be "ethnic" Jews despite there being no common ethnic characteristic.

Thus Dawkins declared himself to be an ethnic Christian shortly after the incident.

What is recognized about race does have three major divisions, Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid. Not a Jewesoid in sight.

Then why are Asians/Indians on par or outperforming Americans of Northern European ancestry in the same school?

That graph there should be good

http://www.asian-nation.org/demographics.shtml

This is has nothing to do with ethnicity. Rather it has to do with culture. Don't matter the race, if Americans can get back to the hardworking cultural roots, a lot of these problems in public schools will go away. As stated earlier, parents are the key to it

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service