/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11797545

>>11797546

>>11797551

>>11797552

>>11797557

>>11797559

>>11797562

>>11797564

>>11797567

>>11797545
>>11797546
>>11797551
>>11797552
>>11797557
>>11797559
>>11797562
>>11797564
>>11797567
>>11797570

>>11797570

>>11797575

>>11797579

>>11797582

>>11797590

>>11797597
https://www.riseprogramme.org/blog/PISA-D_low_learning

>>11797601
https://www.riseprogramme.org/blog/learning_crisis_at_top

>>11797605

>>11797610

>>11797545
>>11797546
>>11797551
>>11797552
>>11797557
>>11797559
>>11797562
>>11797564
>>11797567
>>11797570
>>11797575
>>11797579
>>11797582
>>11797587
>>11797590
>>11797597
>>11797601
>>11797605
>>11797610
>>11797613

>>11797590
https://twitter.com/leecrawfurd/status/1072761444167499776

>>11797650

>>11797647
>>11797650

>>11797655

>>11797666

>>11797656

>>11797545
imagine where the US would be without spics and niggers

Spain

>>11797698

Vietnam

Average scores of USA racial/ethnic groups

Reading literacy:
Non-hispanic Asian: 556
Non-hispanic White: 531
Non-hispanic two or more races: 501
Hispanic (any race): 481
Non-hispanic Black: 448

Mathematics literacy:
Non-hispanic Asian: 539
Non-hispanic White: 503
Non-hispanic two or more races: 474
Hispanic (any race): 452
Non-hispanic Black: 419

Science literacy:
Non-hispanic Asian: 551
Non-hispanic White: 529
Non-hispanic two or more races: 502
Hispanic (any race): 478
Non-hispanic Black: 440

>>11797727
Average scores of Australia racial/ethnic groups:

Reading literacy:
Non-Indigenous background: 507
Indigenous Background: 431

Mathematics literacy:
Non-Indigenous background: 495
Indigenous Background: 426

Science literacy:
Non-Indigenous background: 507
Indigenous Background: 432

>>11797698
>>11797704
>>11797708
Sweden also cheated in PISA 2018 by excluding all immigrant children.

>>11797729
Average scores of New Zealand racial/ethnic groups:

Reading literacy:
Pākehā/European: 524
Asian: 517
Māori: 463
Pacific: 442

Mathematics literacy:
Asian: 522
Pākehā/European: 507
Māori: 451
Pacific: 433

Science literacy:
Pākehā/European: 526
Asian: 523
Māori: 465
Pacific: 438

>>11797734
fake news

https://twitter.com/ghellersahlgren/status/1267924185633951750

>>11797767
anyways most of the increase in Sweden is owning to people with Swedish background

>>11797735
How come NZ whites are the only ones able to actually beat the Asians? The rest of you need to pick up the fucking slack.

>>11797545
Yeah the Swedish results aren't true though, since 15% of the participants were filtered out since they were immigrants. So the true result is a lot lower

>>11797767
That proves nothing when it doesn't address why some people have been excluded.
https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/sveriges-pisa-framgang-bygger-pa-falska-siffror/

and remember that PISA results are only representative of 15-year-olds that are still enrolled in school, for a lot of countries a very high proportion of them by that age are not engaged in schooling anymore so results very likely to be lower, and for some countries maybe even much lower

>>11797812

>>11797676
>>11797727
Sum of mean PISA scores for USA when only including non-hispanic white:
>1563
4th place on that list, highest in North America and 2nd highest in Europe. Also above Australia's score of 1509 (non-indigenous background only, of course this does include both Asians and blacks).

Sum of mean PISA scores for USA when only including hispanic (any race):
>1411
Bottom of that list, probably below many countries not even on that list.

Sum of mean PISA scores for USA when only including non-hispanic black:
>1307
Laughable, especially since they live in a first-world nation and go to the same schools whites do (most of the time). Below ANY European nation? Perhaps.

Sum of mean PISA scores for USA when only including non-hispanic two or more races:
>1477
Between France and Portugal, and not far off from the mean United States score. Hmm.

>>11797787
>>11797793
>So the true result is a lot lower
yes but also applies to all countries
the high exlusion rate on this round in Sweden can be explained I think because of the high inflow of immigrants since 2015 and given that one of the PISA technical standards for testing the students is that they have to be schooled for at least one year in the language of instruction those students were excluded
>were filtered out since they were immigrants
no, they were filtered out because most of them were recent refugees, one of the requirements to sit the PISA assesment is that students have to be schooled for at least one year in the language of instruction at school, there is actually data for foreign-born and non-foreign-born students in all participating countries, including Sweden>>11797793

>>11797937
anyways here's what the OECD/PISA has to say (so far) about Sweden's 2018 data:
>Sweden had the highest exclusion rate: 11.07%. It is believed that this increase in the exclusion rate was due to a large and temporary increase in immigrant and refugee inflows, although because of Swedish data-collection laws, this could not be explicitly stated in student-tracking forms. Instead, students confronted with language barriers were classified as being excluded “for other reasons”, as were students with intellectual and functional disabilities. It is expected that the exclusion rate will decrease to previous levels in future cycles of PISA, as such inflows stabilise or shrink
>The preliminary attribution of school codes in the process of selecting, and then excluding, students and schools may have resulted in the double exclusion (at both the school and student levels) of some of the students with special education needs in Sweden. As a result, the overall exclusion rate in Sweden may have been overestimated by (at most) 0.5 of a percentage point. In this scenario, the overall exclusion rate would still be over 10% and the highest amongst PISA-participating countries/economies.

more information will be available once the Technical Report is fully released

The US is lucky that’s it’s the global superpower. I unironically believe that if the US didn’t have that privilege, it would collapse.

>>11797945
>>11797937
>>11797793
see also this:

>If the correlation between the propensity of exclusions and student performance were 0.3, then resulting mean scores would likely have been overestimated by 1 score point if the exclusion rate were 1%; by 3 score points if the exclusion rate were 5%; and by 6 score points if the exclusion rate were 10%. If the correlation between the propensity of exclusions and student performance were 0.5, then resulting mean scores would likely have been overestimated by 1 score point if the exclusion rate were 1%; by 5 score points if the exclusion rate were 5%; and by 10 score points if the exclusion rate were 10%. For this calculation, a model was used that assumed a bivariate normal distribution for performance and the propensity to participate.

>>11797545
Filipinos are clinically retarded

>>11797980
see >>11797597

To give you an idea of how China would score if all provinces would have participated

Scores from the second Chinese version of the Combined Raven Test (CRT-C2)

The municipality of Shanghai participated as a standalone member in PISA 2009 and PISA 2012, and in 2009 China carried out pilot PISA tests in other 11 provinces

>>11799193

>>11799198

>>11799201

>>11799209

>>11799213

>>11799216

>>11799221

>>11799228

>>11799233

>>11799239

>>11799241

>>11799246

>>11799250
Pilot PISA 2012 for Zhejiang were also then released

>>11799257

>>11799259

>>11797545
>Singapore at the top
Not surprising I guess.
I remember reading an article a year ago about how schools in Singapore have about 50-60% of all 45s in the IB diploma, with some schools averaging over 40. That's really fucking sick, my school barely had an average over 30 and didn't have a student who got 45 since 2005.
I also saw that, apparently, those weren't even the best students. The best ones studied in some sort of A-Level system harder than the one in the UK. And again, almost straight As in their schools.

For real, I don't get how the fuck do they do it. I go to a top school and when I was in High School while I did get good grades I was unable to get perfect scores, except in math. In science there always were some kind of detail that I forgot or some kind of structured question where you miss marks for not wording your explanations IB-style. And in language/history even though we drilled the essay format hundreds of times, it was almost impossible to perfect it. I don't get how those guys do it, I guess in the west we just don't have the discipline or something.

>>11799437
immigrants in Singapore scored even higher

>>11799437

IB population is cherry picked from the top 15% or so of cohort from elementary school.

Many people have ridiculous tuition outside of school. Most of my mates had tuition which costed approx $6k USD per month, outside of school.

Those who cant afford the tuition see the difference in aptitude, and are compelled to study harder or get fucked.

Plus, the government does a good job in limiting salaries of most workers with very liberal foreign labour policy, while having strict protectionism for more elite fields like med, law and special engineering courses. This suppresses wages for all but the top 5% of a cohort, while bolstering the wages of the top 5%, which basically provides some healthy pressure to work harder. An average college grad will make about $1500 USD per month after graduation. A straight A student who will most likely than not get a government scholarship can get paid up to $S3000 per month while still in college with all college fees paid for.

Law graduates make about $S5000 after graduation, which is already more than the median salary of the labour force at $4300. My own parents had end career incomes of around the median, even with a masters degree from the local universities.

An average technical school graduate would be looking at about $900 USD per month, and their end career salaries are around $2000 to $3000. Thus, not getting into college is also a big pain in the ass.

Thus, the majority of rational students will see this, and know that they will get fucked hard if they dont get into a top college course, thus arguably making them work harder then they would if there were no such selection pressures.

From a governmental point of view, this kind of policy is a genius use of the free market to squeeze out every ounce of productivity out of the labour force, and thus attracting more investment. The standard of living is consequently lower for sure due to this, but most people seem happy to make these trade offs.

>>11800817
Interesting explanation. Thanks for this. It does somewhat remind me of a pressure cooker, however. Has this actually produced many famous scientists? What about worthwhile advancements in the various relevant fields?

>>11800849
Singapore (~5 million people) produces more science than Indonesia (~250 million people)

interesting

>>11801558
Is there a word for wagecuck that someone from Singapore might say.?

>>11803074
wageslave

>>11797686
see>>11797727

wheres the rest of the world?

>>11805606
it's an optional assessment, countries have to enlist to participate

CHINA!!!

>Canada just below China, Singapore and Estonia
That's much better than expected. I wouldn't expect anyone to beat China or Singapore anyway and I don't know how good Estonia is.

>>11808263
regarding China see>>11798652

yeah

>>11797601
holy shit nibbaz really be retarded

>>11808263
We Estonians strive to be number one. We're number one in europe in alcohol sold per capita, HIV rate among druggies, drug use and now the PISA test. Also faggotry and niggerdry isn't tolerated by the public, only propagated by the media. Eesti eest surmani!

>>11797857
>Laughable, especially since they live in a first-world nation and go to the same schools whites do (most of the time).
Schools vary a ton in the US and even within the same towns.

>>11812130
Eesti beesti

>>11813865
Estonia Bestonia

>>11812130
>alcohol sold per capita
not anymore

bump

>>11797545
POLAND STRONG

>>11797545
WU STRONG!

>>11797727
crazy

>>11797545
where's CHAD?!

>>11797817
So China covers 80% of 4 provinces, even though China has 23 provinces, which means they're likely including less than 15% of their 15-year-olds. They also changed one of the testing provinces. As usual, China's manipulating the results.

https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/why-chinas-pisa-scores-are-hard-believe

>>11797545
>believing any positive statistic that comes out of china

>chile above argentina
ah, yes, I'm pretty sure the country with such shit educational system and a high number of schools preparing their kids for this and other tests will not have such nice numbers.
but anyway, goes to show that economic conditions do indeed affect the wellbeing of a country.

also,
>russia in the top 30, practically at OECD avg
interesting.

>>11800817
>An average technical school graduate would be looking at about $900 USD per month, and their end career salaries are around $2000 to $3000. Thus, not getting into college is also a big pain in the ass.
wtf, I make more than that in south america, and I dropped out of college...

>>11812130
man, that's sad

>>11797545
I think this thread is a pisa shit

>>11824101
>As usual, China's manipulating the results.
China's scores are not hard to believe, actually the author in that same article explains why, they swapped Guangdong for Zhejiang in 2018, Zhejiang performs way better than the rest of China on all kinds of cognitive tests (see for example >>11798652), even in ancient times the Wu-speaking Chinese area had been know as an intellectual stronghold, and they also traditionally had the highest proportion of people being promoted to jinshi in the imperial examinations, Guangdong also has a higher number of people than Zhejiang, more than twice
B-S-J-Z data is fine, and there were actually other countries that their data wasn't reported (or reported on a separate database or with an "asterisk") because they didn't meet the PISA technical standards (Spain, Vietnam, Hong Kong, USA, Portugal and the Netherlands)

>>11825224
>China's scores are not hard to believe
I believe the scores, what I question is the scores being applicable to the entire country when they're cherry picking the provinces they use, along with China's refusal to release the scores of previously tested provinces which likely didn't score so well (and would thus drag down their apparent intellectual superiority). If >>11799193 and >>11799198 are to be believed, then at least in 2009 when China ranked first, they were actually well behind many other countries with the inclusion of provinces besides Shanghai.

If the USA included only Massachusetts' scores, they'd rank above every European country, lagging only behind the multiple (China) listings and Singapore. That obviously wouldn't be a fair assessment of the entire country.

>>11825267
>what I question is the scores being applicable to the entire country
and why would you do that??? neither the OECD or China or anybody has ever say the results are representative for all of China, it literally says there on the infographic and the reports that the results are only representative only for "Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang", and now that I think about it actually the OECD reports (if you read them) make extra sure to make it clear that the results are not representative for the whole of China, *everytime* they mention "B-S-J-Z" (or "B-S-J-G" in 2015 or "Shanghai" in 2012 and 2009) there's a little footnote at the end of the page expressing that the results are only representative for those provonces, they also do this with other countries/regions as well like with Israel (regarding Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and West Bank) or Cyprus (regarding the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)

>>11825267
>along with China's refusal to release the scores of previously tested provinces
ok let me explain those other provinces that took the PISA assessment in 2009 didn't actually take part in PISA 2009, but they were taking a *pilot* test (this is generally done to prepare for full participation in further PISA cycles), they were not published by the OECD because in order for them to do so participating countries/regions have to undertook supervision in all data collection activities and abide to the PISA technical standards, for example student and school sampling and weighting procedures are done by Westat and ACER in PISA participating countries but in pilot PISA assessments they are done by national authorities, but *anyways*, some of those Chinese results from pilot PISA rounds have been published in scientific journals (this also happens with other countries, for example I remember reading about a Bhutanese pilot test from like 2003 but Bhutan have not yet to participate in a PISA cycle)

>>11825267
>If the USA included only Massachusetts' scores, they'd rank above every European country
what, no or course not, if Massachusetts would have only participated instead of the United States, the United States would not rank higher, only Massachusetts would do so
>That obviously wouldn't be a fair assessment of the entire country.
of course not but only an idiot would believe that "Massachusetts = USA"

>>11824458
>argentina
not really surprising either, Argentina also scores like shit in other international assessments like LLECE, and traditionally they also didn't do that well on the past, for example their literacy rates were third world tier even when they were one of the richests countries in the world

>>11797812
The impact of that could be significant- countries like the USA that require all children to attend school will be brought down by those who don't want to be there, while other countries will have their scores artificially boosted by dropping those kids who either show no academic promise or simply have no interest in education.

>>11828586
see>>11797817

>>11825718
>and why would you do that???
When they get reported by the media, they're often reported for China without that additional caveat It makes sense, who the hell is wondering how those kids in Beijing are scoring? Nearly every other country is reporting results for the country as a whole. Why do you think China's so stringent to only allow it's best educated provinces to participate? Mandarin was a hobby of mine in the past, and I made a number of Chinese friends who I still speak to. This is something we discussed in the past, and they insisted the reported PISA scores are indicative of the entire country, that testing the other provinces wouldn't matter (apparently their media makes a big deal out of the scores). We have evidence to the contrary, but it wasn't worth the argument.

>>11825726
>of course not but only an idiot would believe that "Massachusetts = USA"
Even if it says M* (USA)? What if we didn't bother adding other scores and claimed Massachusetts is just an average state and represents what all states would score? What if we then touted our education system as the best based on those scores? Does that seem ethical to you?

>but *anyways*, some of those Chinese results from pilot PISA rounds have been published in scientific journals
One of the messages I linked has some of the supposed scores (I don't know the source), and they were below the OECD average. I'm sure it's just a coincident those provinces aren't included in current testing. ;-) Heck, there's even questions over Shanghai's 2014 scores, so at this point I'm even skeptical of the scores China does report.

>>11830484
>the media
>*anglo media
I said already that the OECD/PISA has been *very* clear in their reports and databases regarding what the results are representative for, this isn't even something special about China or whatever, other countries have also started their PISA participation with sub-national units instead of whole country (for example the state of Miranda (Venezuela), the emirate of Dubai (UAE), the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (Argentina), etc.), only an idiot (or somebody mislead by their media) would believe those results would be the same as the rest of their countries
>Even if it says M* (USA)?
actually there was a separate sample for Massachusetts in 2012 and 2015, it was reported as "Massachusetts (United States)"
>One of the messages I linked has some of the supposed scores (I don't know the source)
source is "Xue Ping (2012)" see>>11799221
>I'm sure it's just a coincident those provinces aren't included in current testing
in 2015 Guangdong was included as part of "B-S-J-G", and China (like other countries that started their participation with sub-national units) are preparing for full participation in the future>>11830484
>Heck, there's even questions over Shanghai's 2014 scores, so at this point I'm even skeptical of the scores China does report.
not really, of course there have been cases where some countries didn't meet PISA technical standards and the results had to be reported on a separate database or reported with an asterisk or removed altogether (see >>11825224 for a list of countries where that happened in PISA 2018 and www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq for previous rounds), that has never happened with Chinese participants though
And China doesn't really report their scores but the OECD, PISA Governing Board, PISA Consortium, China is not even part of the OECD nor of PGB and there is not even a Chinese company that makes part of the PISA Consortium so I don't see how the results could be even biased in favour of them

>>11830699
see from the OECD:

>In a nutshell, PISA owes its success to a collaborative effort between the participating countries and economies, the national and international experts and institutions working within the framework of the PISA Consortium, and the OECD Secretariat
>Countless subject-matter experts, practitioners and policy makers from the participating countries worked tirelessly to build agreement on which learning outcomes are important to measure and how to measure them best; to design and validate assessment tasks that can reflect those measures adequately and accurately across countries and cultures; and to find ways to compare the results meaningfully and reliably. The OECD Secretariat co-ordinated this effort and worked with countries to make sense of the results...

>To support the technical implementation of PISA, the OECD contracted an international consortium of institutions and experts, led by Irwin Kirsch at the Educational Testing Service (ETS).
>Overall co-ordination of the PISA 2018 assessment, the development of instruments, and scaling and analysis were managed by Claudia Tamassia at ETS.
>The development of the reading and questionniares frameworks was facilitated by Pearson, led by John de Jong, Peter Foltz and Christine Rozunick.
>Sampling and weighting services were provided by Westat, led by Keith Rust.
>Linguistic quality control and the development of the French source version were under the responsibility of cApStAn, led by Steve Dept

/pol/niggers

>>11830699
>only an idiot (or somebody mislead by their media) would believe those results would be the same as the rest of their countries
So you're saying the Chinese are idiots? Because that's what they're claiming, though whether or not they truly believe it is a different issue.

>actually there was a separate sample for Massachusetts in 2012 and 2015, it was reported as "Massachusetts (United States)"
Right, and it wasn't at the exclusion of the USA. Very different, and it serves to show how severe the difference can be between a province/state and the country as a whole.

>are preparing for full participation in the future
They seemed prepared in 2009. Why the hold up? The second largest economy in the world can't figure out how to test the majority of the country?

>in 2015 Guangdong was included as part of "B-S-J-G", and China (like other countries that started their participation with sub-national units) are preparing for full participation in the future
Why was the lowest scoring province (of the five) swapped out for the highest scoring province? Why wasn't Guangdong included as well?

>>11830699
>>11830775
https://www.the74million.org/article/schneider-the-strange-case-of-china-and-its-top-pisa-rankings-how-cherry-picking-regions-to-take-part-skews-its-high-scores/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/lessons-from-the-pisa-shanghai-controversy/

>The Chinese hukou system is unique in the world. Started by Mao Zedong in 1958 as a tool for controlling internal migration from rural to urban areas, hukou is a household registration system that restricts rural migrants’ access to urban social services, including education. Age 15 is a pivotal year in the life of Chinese adolescents. Compulsory education ends at the end of ninth grade and students must take the zhongkao, the senior high school entrance exam, to determine their high school of attendance. Thanks to recent reforms, migrants without a Shanghai hukou can now enroll children in public primary and middle schools, but admission to academic high schools is severely restricted. In addition, students can only sit for the gaokao, the national college entrance exam, in the province of hukou registration. As a consequence, tens of thousands of families send their children back to rural villages as the children approach high school age.[ii]

>Hukou acts as a giant sifting machine, barring or driving out migrant children from urban schools. Coincidentally, PISA assesses the academic achievement of 15-year-olds. At the same time migrant families in Shanghai are feeling the brunt of the hukou system, a random sample is drawn from children attending schools in Shanghai for the PISA test. There is nothing wrong with PISA’s sampling technique, but even a pristine sampling strategy cannot compensate for a population that has already been culled of migrant students.

>>11830779
PISA "target population" is the same for all participating countries, there isn't an exception made for China only or any other participating country/region, see >>11797812 and >>11797817 for more information for interpreting PISA scores

and those articles you shared engaged in the same weird anti-China rethoric I've already deal with, take for example these quotes
>The point is clear: Allowing China to handpick a few of its richest provinces as representing the entire country distorts the very purpose of PISA as a comparative test of national education systems
again nobody at the OECD or Chinese authorities have ever said those results are representative for all the country of China, in fact, they make extra clear that they are indeed only representative for only the provinces that took part
>The OECD secretariat needs to either expand testing nationwide to bring China in line with overall PISA standards or have China excluded as a PISA participant
PISA procedures, technical, standards and statistical methods are actually the same for the Chinese provinces that have participated just like the rest of other countries/regions, and there have been cases where other countries started their participation also with one or more regions instead of a nationwide participation (see>>11830699 and www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq for a list of countries that in at least one PISA round didn't meet the PISA technical standards)

>hukou
if a hukou student is enrolled at least in grade 7 and he is between 15 years and 3 completed months to 16 years and 2 completed months then he gets into the PISA target population and therefore could be tested, just like the rest of PISA participants, but see also >>11797812 and >>11797817 to better interpret those scores as to how representative they are for the *total* 15-year-old population)

Whitoid can't handle based chinks being smarter than his race. Feels good.
t. chink

>>11830775
>Why the hold up?
see pic related
>>11830775
>Why was the lowest scoring province (of the five) swapped out for the highest scoring province? Why wasn't Guangdong included as well?
I don't know, why did Dubai only participated in 2009 instead of Ras Al Khaima? why did Miranda participated in 2009+ and not Apure? why didn't Azerbaijan only tested Baku in 2018 and not all the country even though they already did in 2006 and 2009? and why did India only tested Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu (two of the most well-of Indian administrative units by all measures)? why not all of India? or why not Bihar and Jharkhand? who knows, but surely you won't see any complaints or rants by American pseudo-pundits raising how unbelievably high those scores from India are and how India should not be taken seriously, or how Azerbaijan is "cheating" by only including its capital

>>11830857
I guess this piece by Andreas Schleicher (the "PISA Man" and the Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills at the OECD) would be also relevant

http://oecdinsights.org/2013/12/10/are-the-chinese-cheating-in-pisa-or-are-we-cheating-ourselves/

>>11830877
I mean, it is not even that surprising, the Wu-speaking area of China (Zhejiang, Shanghai and Southeast Jiangsu) have been acing tests for the last 1000 years, there are also good resons to believe why Beijing nowadays also score very high

>>11830857
>again nobody at the OECD or Chinese authorities have ever said those results are representative for all the country of China,
Why do my friends report that as being the case when it's reported there? Do you follow CCTV news? Why is China not testing more provinces already when they've showed they have that capability? Why was Guangdong dropped? You're not answering any of these questions.

>if a hukou student is enrolled at least in grade 7 and he is between 15 years and 3 completed months to 16 years and 2 completed months then he gets into the PISA target population and therefore could be tested
Which is the point. China already has a system in place in the tested provinces to remove the less wealthy and/or underperforming students before they're even eligible for PISA testing. 2/3rds of their 15-year-old population didn't even qualify, so how can the scores possibly be indicative of the quality of China's education system? Not only are they handpicking their provinces, but they're culling the weakest students as well.

So what exactly is the point of PISA testing there? I guess we can say that yes, you will get a good education in China, so long as you're from one of the wealthiest provinces, have the appropriate ancestry, and do well enough on the high school entrance exam to even be granted a chance for a high school education. Yet PISA continues to promote them as a role model to follow for other countries.

>>11830877
I'm not complaining about the results of any Asian country except China.

>>11830779
also wtf that author recommends that people go visit Finland instead for educational tourism even though Finland has been *literally* the country that has decline the most (together with Australia, New Zealand and Iceland) in PISA scores!

https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/australia-and-finland-slide-further-in-pisa-2018/
https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/stop-going-on-about-finland/

>>11830910
>Others were quick to suggest that resident internal migrants might not be covered by Shanghai’s PISA sample, because years ago those migrants wouldn’t have had access to Shanghai’s schools. But, like many things in China, that has long changed and, as described by PISA, resident migrants were covered by the PISA samples in exactly the way they are covered in other countries and education systems. Still, it seems to be easier to cling to old stereotypes than keep up with changes on the ground (or to read the PISA report).
Or, you know, we can actually look at the number of children tested compared to the number of children who should have been tested, and see that the percentage for Shanghai ranked below every single other country tested. Yes, nothing odd about that whatsoever.

>>11830932
>2/3rds of their 15-year-old population didn't even qualify
false, B-S-J-Z had a "coverage index 3" of 81%, not that different from the OECD average of 88% or even USA or Canada at 86%, see >>11797817 and >>11797812

>>11830956
>B-S-J-Z had a "coverage index 3" of 81%
Yes, and magically, they only have 15-year-olds at the rate of 1/3 of most countries. Apparently families from every other country had at least three kids. Nevermind that the USA has 1.9 children per family. Nope, nothing fishy about that. Maybe China really had a .5 child policy.

>>11830944
>>11830980
>look at the number of children tested compared to the number of children who should have been tested
I think you're misunderstanding what the author is trying to say, it's not that Shanghai (or the rest of the Chinese provinces) perform highly only because they tested the highest-performing students but that we have to better interpret PISA scores taking into account that the sampling frame *by design* (for practical reasons) excludes all 15-year-olds that are not enrolled in school at least in grade 7, generally this happens in very low performing countries (which would mean that they would score even lower relatively to the rest if we were to include *all* 15-year-olds) so a more intricate analysis is warranted, that's also why I posted this>>11797812

>>11830980
that was for 2018, in 2012 for Shanghai it was 79% for USA it was 89%, so yes if we were to include the rest of the 21% of the *total* Shanghainese 15-year-olds that were not enrolled in school (or were in primary school) the results would be lower, but this also applies to the rest of the countries as well for example if we were to include the other 11% of Americans that were not represented at PISA (by design) America would also score lower, again this also applies to all countries

see >>11798124 >>11797817 >>11797812

>>11830986
That's been my contention all along, that China isn't testing a broad enough sample of Chinese students, including within the provinces that are tested, due to what it takes to qualify. But then you have the "PISA Man" >>11830910 himself saying:

>International comparisons are never easy and they are never perfect. But anyone who takes a serious look at the facts and figures will concede that the samples used for PISA result in robust and internationally comparable data. They have been carefully designed and validated to be fit for purpose in collaboration with the World’s leading experts, and the tests are administered under strict and internationally comparable conditions.

>Some people turn to dismissing Shanghai’s strong performance by saying that Shanghai’s students are only good on the kind of tasks that are easy to teach and easy to test, and that those things are losing in relevance because they are also the kind of things that are easy to digitise, automate and outsource. But while the latter is true, the former is not. Consider this: Only 2% of American 15-year-olds and 3% of European ones reach the highest level of math performance in PISA, demonstrating that they can conceptualise, generalise and use math based on their investigations and apply their knowledge in novel contexts. In Shanghai it is over 30%. Educators in Shanghai have simply understood that the world economy will pay an ever-rising premium on excellence and no longer value people for what they know, but for what they can do with what they know.

Comparable data? Really, when the testable population in Shanghai is statistically lower than every other country tested (I hope someone is looking for those 200k missing 15-year-olds)? Then he follows it up with praise for Shanghai and ignoring those students who didn't benefit from Shanghai's system because they either weren't good enough or didn't have the right parents.

>>11831009
>the testable population in Shanghai is statistically lower than every other country tested
no, again the "Coverage Index 3" (that is the proportion of PISA-eligible 15-year-olds relative to the total 15year-olds in the tested country/region) was 79% the other 21% were either not currently studying or were in primary school (and therefore not able to sit the PISA test, by design), there were other countries with a much lower "testable population" than Shanghai for example OECD member countries Mexico and Turkey had a lower proportion of 15-year-olds at least enrolled in grade 7, at 63% and 68% respectively, and there were others still lower than Shanghai like Brazil 69% or Albania 55%, lowest (in 2012) was Vietnam at 56%, you can see data for 2018 here>>11797817

>>11831009
>didn't benefit from Shanghai's system because they either weren't good enough or didn't have the right parents
actually hukou students do get into the PISA target population, as long as they are 15-years old and enrolled at least in grade 7, just like the rest of participants

>>11831009
>Comparable data?
yes comparable only for the "PISA target population", which it is 15-year-olds enrolled at least in grade 7

>>11831006
You're not understanding. Let's take 2012 as an example. PISA tested 108k children. If that's 79% of 15-year-olds, then we can assume there were 136k 15-year-olds in Shanghai. That's absurd. If you look at China's birthrate at that time, and compare it to other countries with similar birth rates, then look at 15-year-olds as a percentage of the population, it shows that Shanghai should have well above 200k 15-year-olds. is it likely that Shanghai couples only have kids at half the rate of the rest of the country? I doubt it. More likely is that many of those migrant children, as previously mentioned, either had the wrong ancestry or poor performance on the high school entrance exam, at which point they left the city. Even if you take the low end of 200k, that means PISA only tested a little over half of the potentially eligible 15-year-olds who ended up excluded due to Shanghai's system for culling their less desirable students.

>>11831072
>was 79% the other 21% were either not currently studying or were in primary school
See >>11831072. My point of contention is that there were clearly many, many more 15-year-olds who were excluded for whatever reason, but almost invariably they're students who likely would have scored much lower, which is why they're purged by Shanghai's competitive education system. That means we can't accept Shanghai's results as anything but the performance of their top students.

>>11831078
>>11831072
bro, basically, those "expected" 15-year-olds do not exist because they *aren't* in Shanghai, "Shanghai" just means that they are just testing the 15-year-olds *in* Shanghai, just like the sample for Mexico will not include all the migrants that went to the USA or how the New Zealand sample does not include kiwis in Australia


there are other issues with that piece that I didn't addressed because they seem to be drawn up in bad faith, for example he says that hukou system is "unique" worldwide, even though it was based on the Russian propiska system, and other countries also have residence permits and household registration system (hukou is like a combination of both)

>If that's 79% of 15-year-olds, then we can assume there were 136k 15-year-olds in Shanghai
another mistake, Loveless is using the wrong denominator, he is assuming that PISA is representative for the total population of 15-year-olds but remember that it's actually only representative for the enrolled-at-least-in-grade-7 population of 15-year-olds (the actual figure should be 90796)

>>11831197
oh man and that's just the beginning, he also assumes that Shanghai somehow should have the same age distribution as the rest of China, even though we know that it has a tremendous number of influx of working-age migrants from the rest of the country

>>11831206
oh and did I say that he doesn't even provide any sources for the "table 1-1" (the data which his whole argument is build up?)

I guess that for "National POP (mil)" he could have get it from something like the UN or the WB, even Wikipedia works, "15 Year Olds Reported by PISA" comes from the PISA Technical Report, but again this is the wrong figure, the correct one should be "*Enrolled*
15-year-olds" (check PISA Technical Report) but for the rest he doesn't say, from what I remember from this debate he got the percentage of 15-year olds from national sources, but this is ridiculous because you wouldn't expect Shanghai to have the same age-distribution as the rest of China, because lots of working-age people moving in to coastal cities in East China and to Beijing and Tianjin, but especially to Shanghai! which is know as the economic capital of China, so Shanghai age-distribution would be even more skewed for working-age people

>>11831227
most of this was addresed in a previous post by Zhang Minxuan:

>Are Professor Loveless's argument factual? According to the Sixth National Population Census of the People's Republic of China in 2010, the population of residents of Shanghai (including household population and the transient population living in Shanghai for more than six months) is 23,019,196. Among the age statistics, the population of 13-year-olds in 2010 (15-year-olds in 2012) is 108,056, with 29,966 migrant residents, accounting for 27.73 percent. This data was what we submitted to OECD-PISA as the statistic of student population of 15-year-olds in 2012. Hence, in addition to the 108,000 that we provided, Professor Loveless's argument claiming "there are 120,000 or more 15-year-olds students in Shanghai" does not exist and is a groundless assumption.

>By analyzing the data of the national population census carefully, we found that the age distribution of Shanghai residents who come from other provinces is not even. The highest proportion of the migrant population falls into two segments, which are preschoolers and young adults in their 20s. Of the total population in Shanghai, migrant residents account for 45.87 percent of one year olds, 42.98 percent of five year olds, 63.02 percent of 20 year olds, and 53.78 percent of 29 year olds. It is unscientific and inappropriate for Professor Loveless to simply apply developed countries' (and regions') population data to Shanghai. Migrant children are a significant part of the sample.

>>11831229
>An irrefutable fact is that migrant students have been one of the significant parts of the sample of students since Shanghai started participating in the PISA test in 2009. The proportion of these students is gradually increasing. As PISA doesn't have the concept of "migrant population," we classified those students who were born in Shanghai and whose parents (either or both), were also born in Shanghai as "native Shanghai residents," and those students whose both parents were born in other provinces as "new Shanghai residents," also known as migrant children. Compared with PISA 2009 and PISA 2012 data, the proportion of "new Shanghai residents" in the pool of all PISA students accounted for 19.8 percent in 2009 and increased to 26.5 percent in 2012. This number is very close to 27.73 percent from the national population census representing the proportion of residents without Shanghai hukou.

>>11831232
from any point you see it Shanghai data is not fishy or whatever, the only country which data was removed in the adjudication process in 2009 was AUSTRIA

>For the PISA 2009 assessment, a dispute between teachers’ unions and the education minister in Austria led to the announcement of a boycott of PISA which was withdrawn after the first week of testing. The boycott required the OECD to remove identifiable cases from the dataset. Although the Austrian dataset met the PISA 2009 technical standards after the removal of these cases, the negative atmosphere in relation to education assessments affected the conditions under which the assessment was conducted and could have adversely affected student motivation to respond to the PISA tasks. The comparability of the 2009 data with data from earlier PISA assessments could therefore not be ensured, and data for Austria were therefore excluded from trend comparisons.

>>11831237
see also school response rates, Shanghai data not particularly suspicious

>>11797727
DAS RACIST!

>>11797545
Filtering out cheating China, it's looking pretty good

>>11797650
>>11797655
>spending not guaranteed to help
>rich countries clearly do better
I'm confused. Why is the first dismissed by the caption but the second isn't? It's basically the same pattern.

Shouldn't we obviously expect spending to help but with diminishing returns? You know, like what this seems to show?

>>11831197
>bro, basically, those "expected" 15-year-olds do not exist because they *aren't* in Shanghai, "Shanghai" just means that they are just testing the 15-year-olds *in* Shanghai
Why aren't they in Shanghai? Surely staying and receiving a wonderful education is better than going off to do manual labor for the rest of their lives.

>By analyzing the data of the national population census carefully, we found that the age distribution of Shanghai residents who come from other provinces is not even. The highest proportion of the migrant population falls into two segments, which are preschoolers and young adults in their 20s. Of the total population in Shanghai, migrant residents account for 45.87 percent of one year olds, 42.98 percent of five year olds, 63.02 percent of 20 year olds, and 53.78 percent of 29 year olds. It is unscientific and inappropriate for Professor Loveless to simply apply developed countries' (and regions') population data to Shanghai. Migrant children are a significant part of the sample.
This was actually covered in the article. The migrant children begin leaving en masse as they near high school age. But yes, let's laud an educational system designed to exclude a large group of children that fail to meet their qualifications. It doesn't matter how good the system is when it fails to be available to a large portion of the population.

>>11831197
>another mistake, Loveless is using the wrong denominator, he is assuming that PISA is representative for the total population of 15-year-olds but remember that it's actually only representative for the enrolled-at-least-in-grade-7 population of 15-year-olds (the actual figure should be 90796)
Why are you so obsessed with the "enrolled" part? If many students fail to be enrolled due qualifications that they can't fairly meet, or because the system doesn't provide sufficient slots for the children who need an education, then shouldn't that be part of the grading criteria? PISA ignores this entirely, and okay, we can say PISA is only intended to judge those who are getting an education, but attention should be brought to the fact that many children are being left behind due to not getting that opportunity. A system that allows all to receive a good education is arguably better than a system that allows a few to get a great education at the expense of the rest.

Wow these chinks are actually egoistically attached to defending their country’s fake propaganda iq numbers

From a western perspective it’s really mind blowing, sure we might get incredibly triggered by the implication of your personal iq being less than the people around you, and bullshit on the internet about what country’s best but it’s just bantz we understand it’s all bullshit and all the countries suck

>>11832272
cope cuck ,no go back to BLM protest while licking kike boot

>>11833098
>cope cuck ,no go back to BLM protest while licking kike boot
You're probably dragging down your country's PISA scores since you're nearly illiterate.

>>11832272
PISA is not an IQ test

>>11797686
still below average

>>11831828
that's the caption the Financial Times (*nglo media) chose, this is how the OECD reported it>>11797674

>>11832254
>Why are you so obsessed with the "enrolled" part?
and why are you avoiding the question??? I've told you, that guy wrote an article using deliberatly wrong and made up numbers, and all of that in bad faith, he went to read a 472 page report, with more than a hundred tables just to then report other number

>>11797727
you think African-American score like shit? see how our sandniggers are doing

>>11839033
>>11797545

>>11839037

>>11839037
and scores from Israel don't include the ultra-orthodox boys so results would be even lower

>>11831828
The countries are rich because the people are smart.

>>11839033
Literally why would you bother posting this in Hebrew?

>>11840912
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-student-scores-fall-in-international-test-while-arabs-scores-drop-the-most-1.8221701

>>11835069
see>>11804624

>>11797655
Shouldn't that rather be read as in:
Countries performing better in education tend to be richer
?
Although, why the hell are they using the "reading" score for that?
That's not really comparable due to different languages and writing systems.

>>11838493
>I've told you, that guy wrote an article using deliberatly wrong and made up numbers
We have the numbers for migrant children leaving Shanghai by age, they're not made up or deliberately wrong. Those children leave in large numbers near the age of 15 because of the system Shanghai has set up. There's no opportunity in Shanghai for many of them, so they have to go elsewhere, either to get an education that Shanghai refuses to provide or develop a job skill. So that takes us right back to my original point, that this lauded educational system is only for the top 50% of students or so, the rest are simply shit out of luck. That isn't something to be praised.

>>11843257
his argument rests on the assumption that the age distribution in Shanghai is similar to other developing countries, which is not true (you can do a quick online search yourself to see this)
>deliberately wrong
check the second column of table 1-1, they're the wrong figures, either the author went to the almost 500 pages PISA Technical report just to deliberately publish other number or he's just an idiot for doing so
>made up
notice how he doesn't provide sources for the figures on the tables (I know about the second column because I read the Technical report) but who knows where he's getting the rest of them, his source, literally is "Author's calculations"
>50% of students or so
another made up number

I know that more context is needed to interpret PISA scores but that's why I posted the previous pics so that people knows who gets to sit the assessment

bit anyways why are you talking about the scores from 2012? this thread is more about the 2017/2018 results, China has expanded the sampling to other provinces *and* also the schooling of total children (coverage index 3 of B-S-J-Z in 2018 was 81% lower but not that far from OECD average of 88%)

>>11836939
>that's the caption the Financial Times (*nglo media) chose
That explains it lol

>>11844506
>his argument rests on the assumption that the age distribution in Shanghai is similar to other developing countries
No. Did you not read the article? There's a reason Shanghai has such a small population of 15-year-olds, and it's discussed in the article.

>notice how he doesn't provide sources for the figures on the tables
Seriously, did you not read the article? There's a link of sources at the bottom.

http://faculty.washington.edu/kwchan/ShanghaiPISA.jpg
http://faculty.washington.edu/kwchan/
https://www.routledge.com/Urbanization-with-Chinese-Characteristics-The-Hukou-System-and-Migration/Chan/p/book/9781138066861

>China has expanded the sampling to other provinces *and* also the schooling of total children
Shanghai's population of children shrinks by 50% by the time they're 15 because they can't get an education in Shanghai, and that's not reflected in PISA's numbers for 2012, so why should I trust their 2017/2018 numbers? Did the hukou system magically disappear? Are all children able to remain in those cities for those quality educations, or are they still being forced to go elsewhere?

>>11797945
What about Israel?

>>11797783
The really smart and rich ones don't come here unfortunately. We get the rejects of Australia and USA.

>>11844643
Indian-Americans average IQ have been estimated at around 112, I think that has something to do with it

Can an American answer - why are black people's income much lower than whites/asians/indians? Do they have problem going to school or do they not take school seirously?

>>11797676
Lmao China lie.

>>11845887
see >>11798652

>>11845827
low

>>11830921
how much of this intelligence is reliant on obedience

>>11797633
This made me burst out laughing, upvoted

>>11849232
low what?

>>11831828
correlation not causation

>>11849993
?

>>11844618
>• The higher exclusion rate in Israel was the result of a higher school-level exclusion rate due to the lack of participation by a
particular type of boys’ school. These schools were considered to be non-responding schools in cycles up to 2015 but were
treated as school-level exclusions in 2018.

haredi schools

>>11797545
this really disproves the supposed high Jewish iq, which in turn proves their overrepresentation is only due to extreme ethnic favoritism, not general competence.

>>11853083
Can confirm
Talked to an honors student a few months ago, so many jews had done him so many favors, he said when his airplane landed in israel he had a religious experience of feeling complete belonging.
They have such a connectivity web that it's not even funny, win-win for eachother but not for the outside

>>11853083
>>11853095
see >>11839033 for Israel results disaggregated by language (Arabic-speakers, Hebrew-speakers), notice that Arabs are about 20% of the population of Israel, but anyways the "supposed" higher "Jewish" IQ only applies to the Ashkenazi not to the rest of Jewish ethnicities, in Israel there Mizrahi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Beta Jews, even traditionally Chinese and Indian Jewish groups, and there are other ethnicities living in Israel besides Jews and Arabs like Armenians or the Druze

>extreme ethnic favoritism
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323681878_Judaism_as_a_Group_Evolutionary_Strategy_A_Critical_Analysis_of_Kevin_MacDonald's_Theory

>>11853083
>this really disproves the supposed high Jewish iq
I thought that was based on Ashkenazi in the USA?

>>11853769
yes

>>11813865
>>11815116
I bought my wife from you guys, she is a good woman, thanks.

>>11853401
>Mean performance did not change over the past *two decades*
I'd say that's the most important finding right there

>>11797545
They cheat in China and Singapore.

>>11857075
see >>11825224 >>11797698
>>11797708

and to better interpret PISA scores see >>11797812

>>11797676
Hey what else does that curve correlate to /pol/?

>>11797857
You reweighted based on population, right Anon?

>>11797947
>would
Don’t turn on CNN

>>11828586
Retard. They’ll bring you down later if you don’t force them.

>>11831229
Fine then the US entry should be cherry picked too.

>Mexico
WHY WON'T DEM KIDS TO STUDY, WE SCORE LOWER THAN THEM ROACHES.

>>11839033
The black hats are even worse than sandherders, ach sheli

>>11857103
So basically they cheat, or rather, abuse the system and the OECD allows it.

>>11797545
>the china results only consider the richest areas
lmao

>>11858227
why does he do it, bros?

>>11858396
>the china results
those are not "China" results, it literally says right there "B-S-J-Z", which means those are only representative for those provinces/municipalities

>>11858575
I'm sure they're operating independently of China, right?

>>11858921
what do you mean?

>>11859690
The CCP has no say or oversight in which provinces are being tested?

>>11860622
see https://youtu.be/i4RGqzaNEtg and >>11830716 and >>11798652

and for the record B-S-J-Z has about the same GDP per capita as Estonia, Poland, Portugal or Malaysia

>>11860843
So in other words, the provinces aren't operating independently, it's ultimately the CCP making the call on which provinces can be tested?

>and for the record B-S-J-Z has about the same GDP per capita as Estonia, Poland, Portugal or Malaysia
I didn't mention GDP. Even in >>11798652, it's very clear that were China to test the entire country, their PISA rank would fall dramatically. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the CCP is choosing provinces that will place at the top of the list.

Also, in the original image, >>11797545, it even says "Countries are ranked in descending order of the average reading score." So sure, you can throw in the asterisk, but it's a listing by country, not by province or city. BSJZ are representatives of China, they're not representing themselves, no matter how you want to spin it.

>>11858575
obviously that the point, its being portrayed as china to boost the perception of china

>>11797727
PURELY

ECONOMIC

FACTORS

>>11861051
>BSJZ are representatives of China, they're not representing themselves, no matter how you want to spin it.
idiot

>>11861887
Just because all Chinese aren't as smart as their cherry picked students doesn't mean they're idiots.

>>11861759
those four provinces had population of ~185 million in 2018 while China it was ~1400 million

>>11861759
>>11860843
>and for the record B-S-J-Z has about the same GDP per capita as Estonia, Poland, Portugal or Malaysia
and China as a whole had a similar GDP per capita as Colombia/North Macedonia

>>11827676
I don't know wtf you are talking about, Argentina has had universal literacy since the 1960s (Source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/literacy.htm)) which was otherwise unheard of in South America at the time. In fact it was quite an achievement for a country that in the 1930s was receiving mostly illiterate Spanish and Italian peasant immigrants literally the refuse of Europe were welcomed and brought up to a high level of education and middle class Western living standards in a generation by the 1960s. It was quite a lauded and advanced education system at the time, producing several Nobel prize winners and such.

The real downfall of Argentine education started in the 1990s when the school system was "federalized", instead of a unified national school system as had been the norm until then, the national government handed over control of the school system to each province but without the proper funding and the whole system unraveled.

That said, while I agree the school system here has been wrecked, I don't fully trust PISA's reliability as per the figures in >>11797945, we have the highest school enrollment rates in South America and don't exclude immigrants either so I don't see how it's comparable with some South American countries where half the kids are not in school.

I mean take a look at pic related, is it really comparable? Nationwide school results with most kids enrolled in schools vs some elitist system where only urban middle class kids are being tested (ie. Peru) ?

>>11864201
>I mean take a look at pic related, is it really comparable? Nationwide school results with most kids enrolled in schools vs some elitist system where only urban middle class kids are being tested (ie. Peru) ?
the pattern you see (from here >>11797545 and here >>11797817) is that actually the high performing countries have also very high enrollment of 15-year-old students at school and the very low performance also have very low enrollment (again compare >>11797817 and >>11797545), but there are some exceptions, for example the Chinese provinces score way above average but their proportion of 15-year-olds in school is slightly below average, Turkey scores about the same as Greece but Grece's coverage index 3 is slightly above 90% while in Turkey is slightly above 70%, Argentina is also one of those countries, it has a similar score to Brazil but in Brazil only two out of three 15-year-olds are enrolled at least in seconday school but in Argentina is eight out of ten>>11864201
>only urban middle class kids are being tested (ie. Peru) ?
again, results are only representative for 15-year-olds enrolled at least in grade 7, this is the same for all participating countries/economies, it includes teenagers in urban and rural areas, foreigners, public and private schools, etc.
and btw Peru's coverage index 3 is 73.1% not that far from Argentina 80.6%

>>11864305
>here >>11797545 (OP) and here >>11797817 (You)
here's a better pic

>>11864307
>>11864305
Alright, thanks for the clarification but my point stands that perhaps there should be separate PISA indexes for different levels of coverage. Your second chart in particular makes that very clear. A country with 80 or 90 percent coverage is gonna have a much wider representation of people across all social classes than a country with low coverage where those enrolled at schools will tend to be from more priviledged backgrounds. Putting everything mixed up into a single index just muddies the waters (particularly when it comes to China which is the most egregious example but also other countries).

I get that PISA shows the quality of education and not how many people actually receive education at all, and both things are important, but the average layman is not gonna delve deep into the PDFs to dig up the charts you are posting here and draw these conclusions. Newspapers just report "X country has better education than Y" which is highly misleading.

>>11864307
anyways, a lot of people think that Argentina's scores are too low (especially Argentines?), I don't, there's no reason to expect them to score higher because we also have other data that points that they aren't as different from other Latin-American countries, for example they don't score that great in the LLECE assessments which tests kids in grade, and in primary education the difference in the enrollment of students is much lower between countries, but yet Argentina doesn't look *that* good (it scores about the same as Brazil and Peru, below Mexico, and Chile is above everyone else)

>>11864335
even the limited data we have from centuries ago (like raw literacy rates, age-heaping data, number of doctors or engineers) don't show that Argentina was a bright place

>>11797686
The main problem with the US is the demonization of intellectualism. Kids are encouraged to play sports and are called nerds if they seek to expand their knowledge.
There's also the fact that the entire system is rigged to keep people stupid in order to quell competition. Ask yourselves why books like Harry Potter are relatively cheap while college textbooks and other sources that impart useful knowledge are much more expensive, often costing into the hundreds of dollars.
Other countries place an emphasis on the attainment of knowledge because they understand the importance of an intelligent population. In the US, school starts around 8:00 and ends before 15:00. In France, school starts before 8:00 and ends around 17:00. In China, students are in before 8:00 and sometimes don't leave until after 21:00. That's a lot more time spent on education.

>>11864328
>perhaps there should be separate PISA indexes for different levels of coverage
yeah that should be perfect except for the fact that we don't know how those teenagers score, because we do not test them
>Newspapers just report "X country has better education than Y" which is highly misleading.
yeah that's also a problem, it's kind of disheartening because the OECD/PISA since a decade or so have been very explicit to let the public know more caution has to be taken when interpreting scores and that they are only representative for people in school, they do so not only through the technical records and database but also through press releases and conferences aimed to the public, even in multiple languages

>>11864353
>are called nerds if they seek to expand their knowledge.
I don't really see that often. There's difference between being good at school and liking say Sonic the Hedgehog. Hell many academic people are also into sports and vice versa.

>Ask yourselves why books like Harry Potter are relatively cheap while college textbooks and other sources that impart useful knowledge are much more expensive, often costing into the hundreds of dollars.
Because Profs are in the hustle that's why.

>Other countries place an emphasis on the attainment of knowledge because they understand the importance of an intelligent population. In the US, school starts around 8:00 and ends before 15:00. In France, school starts before 8:00 and ends around 17:00. In China, students are in before 8:00 and sometimes don't leave until after 21:00. That's a lot more time spent on education.
More hours don't translate into better education, efficient education and studying actually does more overall.

>>11864335
But Argentina scored a much higher ranking in PISA itself, it is undeniable the education system here was better and has gone to shit, along with other social indicators, you can go look at World Bank data for Argentina to witness the disaster that was the 1990s.

>>11864338
Argentina was a shithole in the 1900s, go reread my post, I said the education system was good in the 1950s-1980s, not in the 1900s.

Argentina in the 1900s was basically a Spanish backwater that struck gold in the form of food exports, but it remained a country with a very Latin American social structure, the military prevented social democratic parties from winning elections (as in then comparable economies Canada or Australia) so you had weird political movements like peronism which was basically a form social democracy disguised as nationalistic so as to be acceptable for the military to defuse the social tensions. Regardless it was in the 1950s-1970s that Argentina had a great education system with several Nobel prize winners and a comparable living standard to Western Europe, in the 1900-1930s it was a one of the richest countries in the world, but it was much more unequal and typically Latin American in its social structure. Only in the 1950s-1970s it became a truly middle class developed country, but again things unraveled after the 1970s with the military taking over again.

Simpson effect is a fickle thing

>>11845827
The thing about these stats is that they group the races to huge. whites aren't monolith and the same applies to Asians and Indians. Blacks are behind whites in many stats but if you compare Black Americans to their Southern white cohorts and the gap is bridged a decent amount, not completely removed but reduced nonetheless. We can also use stats like Hmong and compare them to Other Asians and also Asians as a whole and they tend to be low performing.

>>11864372
Things have probably changed. When I was in school, anti-intellectualism was pretty rampant. Nowadays, it seems like younger people place more emphasis on games and social media.

Professors do make money on their textbooks, but the financial elite know that it's in their best interest to have the population just smart enough to fill their job requirements but at the same time dumb enough not to be competitive.

As for time spent on education, there is the factor of diminishing returns, but it seems like the Chinese system has this covered. They have a morning exercise session, a lengthy lunch break and an afternoon nap, which gives students time to recouperate. They pretty much spend close to twice in the amount of time in education per day, though this system wouldn't work here due to budget constraints.

>>11864379
>Regardless it was in the 1950s-1970s that Argentina had a great education system with several Nobel prize winners and a comparable living standard to Western Europe
>Only in the 1950s-1970s it became a truly middle class developed country, but again things unraveled after the 1970s with the military taking over again

>>11864490

>>11864496
>>11864490
That doesn't disprove what I said, it's literally ranked better than Spain (Western Europe). Your charts support exactly what I said.

I don't even know what your point is anymore, do you have an axe to grind against argies?

Like I said, 1900s-1930s, one of the richest countries in the world, but very unequal. There was a growing middle class, but it wasn't on par with the USA. (Hence mostly Italians and Spaniards immigrated, who lived in even worse conditions back in Europe, rather than British or Germans who migrated to the US)

1940s-1970s fell a bit in the wealth rankings but became a more equal society, broad middle class, full social mobility and universal literacy, industrial economy manufacturing cars like the Siam Di Tella, basically a developed country.

1970s-today, stagnated due to a bunch of economic crises and fell back to the level of a second world country, like Chile, Uruguay, Portugal, Hungary, etc.

>>11864569
>>11864496
>>11864490
Here you can see the historical trajectory of HDI (Human Development Index) which measures education, healthcare, GDP per capita and poverty. Uruguay followed a similar trajectory too.

>>11864379
>But Argentina scored a much higher ranking in PISA itself
no, relatively, it scored about the same as othet LatIn-American countries

>>11864371
>yeah that should be perfect except for the fact that we don't know how those teenagers score, because we do not test them
Then the OECD shouldn't be releasing scores for those countries until there's adequate test coverage.

>it's kind of disheartening because the OECD/PISA since a decade or so have been very explicit to let the public know more caution has to be taken when interpreting scores and that they are only representative for people in school
That's their own fault. They're placing an emphasis on only those students who actually have the opportunity to receive an education. If they believe caution should be taken, then they shouldn't laud educational systems that exclude a large amount of children. That's not to be commended, that should be criticized, yet the OECD does just the opposite. Why should a country aim for higher student coverage when they know the OECD will slobber all over them if they have only their top students test and score well? It's good promotion for the country, and the OECD is feeding into the hypocrisy.

>>11867010
the OECD/PISA doesn't do any of that idiot, I bet you haven't even read their press releases, or even their Twitter pages, even they don't really put that much emphasis on the scores, much of the analysis is done on the background questionnaires

>>11867311
>the OECD/PISA doesn't do any of that
They do, including "Mr. PISA" himself.

why tho

>>11797666
>"read only if I have to" at nearly 50%
I mean, I guess that lines up with nearly 50% of people being below average intelligence. Also the death of magazines saddens me, though they are pretty much shit and always have been.

>>11799437
By being soulless. Literally. Not having a real childhood or anything. It's kind of sad honestly.

>>11799437
>IB's
Lol

>>11798124

>>11797545
B-S-J-Z? China inflating their numbers?

>>11870255
Baku? Azerbaijan inflating their numbers?

>>11871019
>PISA 2009
Dubai? United Arab Emirates inflating their numbers?
Miranda? Venezuela inflating their numbers?
Himachal Pradesh? India inflating their numbers?
Tamil Nadu? India inflating their numbers? (again?)

>>11871049
>Canada
>does not include Yukon, nor Northwestern Territories nor Nunavut nor any First Nation school
Canada inflating their numbers?

>>11871062
Haha, you're reaching so hard at this point.

>>11870255
Of course, but be careful, members of the OECD and CCP are monitoring this thread.

Now compare it to a list with nigger populations per capita for some real science

>>11871090
you mean this? >>11797727

>>11797727
delet these raycis facts

>>11871109
see how PISA-D countries fared here
>>11797597
>>11797647

>>11868798
cope

>>11797783
NZ probably includes MENAs in the asian category. US only include orientals.

>>11872557
in New Zealand Middle Easterners and North-Africans are part of "MELAA", and in the USA "Asian" not only includes East Asians but also South- and South-East Asians, but I think the main difference is that the Indian population in the United States is much more selected

>>11797545

chinese are notorious for cheating.

>>11797545
God I hate China so much, just lying and cheating their way through everything.

>>11872750
see >>11825224 www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq

>>11825224
>Zhejiang performs way better than the rest of China
Wtf I thought race was all that mattered

>>11873504
yes? kinda? it would be as if being surprised that Northern Spaniards and Northern Italians score better than their southern compatriots, while in Germany we see the opposite pattern, or how New Englander whites being better than West Virginian whites

>>11872750
>>11873014
Read earlier in the thread and see the freakazoid mass simping for the Chinese. They test only a few provinces and they ship all the poor and low-performing children out of the provence to work labor before they ever come of age to possible skew the results down.

And they lie and cheat, of course. Watch some of the CCP propaganda videos that are out there. It's laughable what the Chinese public find convincing. You can even find propaganda meant to target a western audience and it's hilarious what they think would influence a foreigner's frame of mind. CCP and the Chinese are a joke. I really pity the people there, I hope they find their spirit.

>>11873561
>They test only a few provinces
joke's on you they don't actually test them themselves, the OECD hires an external contractor to do the sampling and weighting procedures, in the case of PISA 2018 it was Westat and ACER which are American and Australian companies respectevly, there are also visits by independent observers to the sampled schools to validate everything is being conducted according to the international specifications

and also, the Chinese participating provinces did meet the PISA technical standards, unlike Spain, Vietnam and other countries

The reason for Chinese overachievement can be explained because they are not only testing Han provinces but provinces where Wu Chinese reside, Wu Han Chinese are know for their intellectual and technological success, they had been even acibg the imperial examinations for the last one thousand years, you can even see a lot of accomplished Taiwanese that have Wu ancestry, even though Taiwan is mostly made up of Fujianese with some Hakka and Northerners

Where's Congo?

>>11875081
1° N, 15° O

>>11797767
Did you even understand what that tweet stated??

>>11797545
Who take's these PISA exams? How do they decide?

>>11878620
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i_9650307a-en

>>11878084
sure

>>11797545
>argentina is shit as usual
20 Years downhill

>>11824458
>argentina's education system is better than chile's
You have never been to a conurbano school then

>>11880593
true, I haven't. and I bet you haven't been to a chilean provincial school or any public school either, probably.

>>11864201
>The real downfall of Argentine education started in the 1990s when the school system was "federalized", instead of a unified national school system as had been the norm until then, the national government handed over control of the school system to each province but without the proper funding and the whole system unraveled.
that and many other similar trends happened all over the world in the 80s, 90s and early 00s. blame neoliberalism for that.

>>11875081
;)

>>11880589
most countries score about the same as twenty years ago

>>11797545
Either don't list China or list the the best scoring European cities too.

>>11883538
B-S-J-Z had a population of about 185 million in 2018

some countries have extended samples in order to have reliable estimates for sub-national entities

As always, Brazil ommits the states, and doesn't report on race. After all, we don't want people having any racist ideas!

>>11884398
>B-S-J-Z had a population of about 185 million in 2018
So a whopping 13.2% of the population. Meanwhile, they dropped a province with over 100 million people, and that province was coincidentally pulling the scores down.

>>11797545
>reading
>mathematics
>science
>no philosophy
reddit would be pleased

also
>measuring 15 year olds

>>11884612
nobody is saying results are representative for all of China (and by the way this also applies to other locations like Baku)

>>11885539
State sponsored television in China is saying it.

>>11885623
not really, didn't even make headlines back in December

>>11885637
I assume you're living in China?

>>11885623
LOL

>>11884588
>As always, Brazil ommits the states
there had been rounds where Brazil had expanded samples in order to report results by state, not in 2018 though but they were big enough to report by macro-regions

>>11881149
muh neoliberalism boogeyman

>>11888475
t.doesn't know shit about history

>>11888485
Define neoliberalism

>>11888488
a political-economic trend that started in the 70s or earlier and replaced (or tries to replace) keynesianism, that promotes laissez-faire and a technocratic "economy over politics" view of the society (even though their proponents usually make retarded mistakes when they have the power of the state/government). it became really popular in the 80s/early 90s.
one of the policies that came with it was it was wholesale privatization of many public companies (public as in owned and managed by states/governments) for pennies, and the almost abandonment of public schools and universities.
some examples: in the country I live now we pay for "public" universities and some of its buildings are almost falling down. in another country where I used to live, professors would teach for the love of teaching, without getting paid a single cent. these countries export raw materials and tons of food to rich countries... and most people barely get any benefits from that.

>>11797557
Canadian Provinces?

>>11873504

>>11892161

>>11890442
>The Canadian provinces refer to the seven provinces of Canada that participated in the PISA 2018 financial literacy assessment: British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.

>>11871084
so like 35% world's population?

>>11797545
I am eastern european and I know for a fact that actual average performance in my country is much worse. I don't know how they obtained these results, maybe they tested students from top schools only, or what kind of test they used but these ratings are very innacure.

>>11894698
Eastern Europeans actually score slightly lower on PISA compared to TIMSS/PIRLS

see >>11879188 to see how samples are gathered and how representative samples are for the total population>>11797812 >>11798124

wtf Lebanon

>>11896654
arabs are really fucking stupid, people that don’t have a lot of experience with them don’t realize how close to nigger tier they are.

>>11896659
Black countries score much lower

>>11897672
There aren't African countries on the OP

>>11800817
I'm packing my bags as we speak.

>>11844598
You have the patience of a saint. Or hemorrhoids. Either way, I wish you well.

>>11852200
more like chicken or egg

>>11864353
Tell me about it. We just decriminalized gifted education. Fuck Sweden.

>>11898936
It's both, anon.

This thread is a month old.
Stop bumping your own thread faggot.

>>11898981
I haven't bumped it In like a week lol what's going on

>>11898953
Because the system of selecting gifted kids is really not that accurate. Especially since MANY gifted kids are stuck in shit schools in many education systems or have various disorders as well since being gifted does not suddenly make you not dyslexic.

Bump.

>>11797545

>>11899411
Really the only thing you can do is segregate the mega underperformers, there's so much divergence as far as thinking at the upper end, actually pinning down how geniuses should be taught is difficult. Really Germany's system is likely the best imo, even if the economic gradient is large.

>>11902200
>Really Germany's system is likely the best imo
The issue thoguh is that switching between streams is harder and putting that much choices fora kid/parent to choose is pretty stressful. Especially if the parent and/or kid doesn't know the system that well.

>>11896654
all the smart Lebanese went to the Americas or Greece/Cyprus

>>11902200
>>11902247
Germany ultimately comes down to Gymnasium or not-Gymnasium, and that leads to parents making irresponsible decisions for their child after elementary school.
There are ways to ascent the education ladder further down, but it's difficult, and I'm not sure, if I could recommend it.

While I think the split happens a little early in Germany, I won't deny, I was glad all my bullies went to the lowest tier school after elementary.

>>11900517
stop.

>>11905880
Bump.

imagine caring about some fucking school test

LMAO NERDS

>>11864201
>I don't know wtf you are talking about, Argentina has had universal literacy since the 1960s
>It actually goes down after Peron and his lackeys take the country and establish the "Espadrilles yes, books no!" mentality
>blaming the 90s
>avoiding to talk about "win decade" and how the changes in the education system yield worse and worse results each year
You dropped your chimi anon

>>11881149
>neoliberalism
Boogeyman aside (since neoliberalism did bring problems to education but not what you are implying) in most of argentinean provinces the law states that no kid can loose a year if they fail a lot (or all) courses. This was because the dropout rate was high. Now they've reduced dropout rate at the cost of actual accademic score as there is no way of getting children to study their ass in order to get an education.
The funny thing is, most of the teens that have it easy in highschool can't pass their entry exams to universities (most public and some private) so the actual prestige of the universities is slowly falling in order to compensate for this and still get their money/quotas.
Meritocracy is a shit but there is sadly no replacement for the stuff that it does good, people who work/study their ass off should get far and those who don't, should struggle in order to grow and get far.

>>11889194
>a political trend
Fixed that for you. Theres no "Neoliberal School" of economics.

>>11907113
>Illia established universal literacy in the 1960s as shown by the maps in http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/literacy.htm
>muh peron boogeyman
kys retard