Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fatuous_sobriquet t1_j89itpe wrote

Reply to comment by moyismoy in Study links Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy in Africa to the use of media platforms that spread misinformation. The spread of the Covid-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa was accompanied by unprecedented and recurring waves of misinformation and disinformation. by Wagamaga

It’s true. American education is abysmal.

35

moyismoy t1_j89lxvl wrote

no, but its also not that good. We tend to rank between 10-30 out of ~200 nations for education. as such we are doing better then sub-Saharan Africa for total pop vaccinated. Though i guess thats not impressive.

21

stusthrowaway t1_j89v7pt wrote

Better than the other third world nations.

2

NeedlessPedantics t1_j8a15ep wrote

I think you’re trying to use “third world” in a colloquial sense to mean something similar to impoverished.

But the US is certainly part of the first world, but not because of reasons you may think. Rather, it’s in part because the US was an allied democratic nation following the Second World War.

https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

People misuse these terms frequently though, so I get it.

18

moyismoy t1_j8a1xuv wrote

the funny thing is Austria, Switzerland, and other nations doing far betting then the USA on everything we can test for are still 3rd world.

2

NeedlessPedantics t1_j8a2gpo wrote

That’s right.

Which is why I tried giving the guy some additional information so he doesn’t make himself look foolish to anyone that knows what those terms actually mean in the future.

So of course he downvotes, says something shitty, then deletes his comment.

Because providing a better understanding of something with additional information is just a dick move on my part. /s

5

HeIIjumper t1_j8aj2tt wrote

Maybe intelligence metrics are off?

Or maybe intelligence isn't the most important metric?

1

moyismoy t1_j8aqyz9 wrote

lol, the metric is if you were allied to the USA(1st world) or the USSR(2nd world) or other(3rd world) back in the 60s.

4

HeIIjumper t1_j8b635z wrote

Why do you use it, then?

0

moyismoy t1_j8be8w2 wrote

I dont use it. I use gapminder.

1

HeIIjumper t1_j8bed4e wrote

Do you not understand what I'm saying?

If you're so intelligent, why are you "third world"?

−2

Billbat1 t1_j8b6s7f wrote

is it ok to consider usa as a developing country considering its shocking healthcare system?

1

Penis_Envy_Peter t1_j8d4cmo wrote

To have the capacity to do right and opting to not from greed is worse than failing to do so as a result of inability. The US is hyper developed and morally bankrupt.

2

Billbat1 t1_j8d4x2k wrote

theres plenty of corruption in uk and canada. i wouldnt say americans are more susceptible to corruption. when america was forming there was a strong sense of the american dream. of working hard to make sure you had a good life. its a useful idea to motivate people back then. but that idea has stuck around and now theres still a lot of people who think its up to the individual to work hard to buy healthcare.

1

acdha t1_j8a2sob wrote

It’s not. American education quite closely tracks the parents’ socioeconomic status, and we have a disproportionate level of poverty for a rich nation, however. Once you compare children of similar status things tend to be a lot more similar than you’d expect based on our political discourse.

One similar confound for comparison is that we use one general system for everyone and don’t track kids into separate non-college vocational programs. That’s not saying that those are bad decisions but if you’re comparing student performance or cost you need to make sure that you’re not inadvertently comparing a system where, say, kids with learning disabilities are separated to one where they aren’t without trying to correct for that.

6

Petaurus_australis t1_j8c4rr5 wrote

>It’s not. American education quite closely tracks the parents’ socioeconomic status, and we have a disproportionate level of poverty for a rich nation, however. Once you compare children of similar status things tend to be a lot more similar than you’d expect based on our political discourse.

But comparing children of similar status is not indicative of the overall state of education. If there's a lot of poor people, and poor people have worse education accessibility, then the country isn't likely going to be very well educated. If money is intrinsically tied to education in your country... that's still a factor in how educated the country is overall, and the quality of the education people receive.

We don't consider Ethiopia a very well educated country, and most of that is because of the abysmal socioeconomics, I mean what is the other explanation for the difference? That they are an innately stupid race of human? I think that kind of thinking is about three centuries past it's expiry date. If the top 5% in Ethiopia have similar education to the top 5% in New Zealand, that's all and good for the top 5%, but high quality for one small percentile bracket, does not translate to the quality of education for the overall population.

The even worse quality of that system is that it essentially maintains a dynamic where the poor remain uneducated, and therefore remain poor because education is tied to income, the poor go on to have more kids than other demographics (because that's what the demographic transition model shows) and the kids grow up poor, and soon you find the system becomes dominated by that demographic and the educated portion grows into a ever more concentrated elite. Exactly what you see in the USA, and exactly why countries where the highest quality education system is accessible to pretty much the entirety of the population tend to score higher overall nationally, than the USA, IE, Sweden.

3

acdha t1_j8d2815 wrote

First, I was specifically responding to the “abysmal” characterization — I think there's plenty of room for improvement. The main point was that when making comparisons across countries we have to perform some corrections if we're looking for ideas about where we could improve. Since wealth isn't evenly distributed across countries or within them it's easy to find a smaller country which looks like an outlier, run some editorials about how they've discovered the secret to education, and not really have learned anything other than that life easier if you're not poor.

What we'd want to look for in setting goals are the countries with high social mobility because, as you mentioned, it's better when students can do markedly better than their parents. The results of that comparison likely also ideas outside of the educational system itself: for example, if the child of poor immigrants in Scandinavia does better it might be that their teachers and curriculum are about the same but the better social support system means their parents aren't working 3 jobs to make rent or asking their oldest child to stay home to watch their siblings while they work.

Part of why I mentioned immigrants in that previous example is that this is also a complicating factor for the U.S. because we have a relatively large number of immigrants compared to many of our peers and a large fraction don't arrive speaking English. Many older children score poorly that way due to language proficiency, so using those figures to attack the educational system is a disservice to both sides.

1

rodgerdodger19 t1_j8bg3gh wrote

It show with you(looked at your history) sorry the education failed you. Hopefully it gets better as the younger generations come of age and force change.

1