Talk:Education in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education in the United States has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	United States Portal This article is supported by the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Education in the United States has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Home Education 2 Equality amoung states and regions 3 old topic 4 Issues 5 post sec POV 6 overal tone of this article 7 Sources needed 8 Another list 9 Rewrite of subsection: Private vs. Public K-12 10 Sex Education 11 Elementary- grammar- grade- public school- added to the section 12 2006 Budget numbers 13 Neutrality of opening sentence 14 Peer Review 15 English 16 Ordinal vs. Cardinal (Grade Naming System) 17 Who runs community colleges? 18 Second paragraph 19 US article on featured candidate 20 Gifted ed. 21 United States compared to other countries 22 University of Washington 22.1 Non sense! 23 Remove all schools in status ladder? 24 Notes and references for "status ladder" 25 Point of View Problem 26 Confusion about Literacy Rates 27 Admission criteria for U.S universities 28 Dubious statement

[edit] 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)

[edit] Equality amoung states and regions

According to one ranking system (Morgan Quitno)[1], 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? penis 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[2]. C. Nelson 04:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Issues

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [3]
• 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [4]--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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^[1] 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)

[edit] 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 on 2006-07-14.

"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. [5] 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 on 2006-07-14. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)