I think that’s a childish game that we as a culture should really just throw away. You should be learning a specialty, not doing stupid things for 4 years out of some misplaced sense of “that’s the time to have fun in life.”
“The downside, you won’t get the ‘college experience’”.
I think that’s a childish game that we as a culture should really just throw away. You should be learning a specialty, not doing stupid things for 4 years out of some misplaced sense of “that’s the time to have fun in life.”
Well, considering that I am not from the US myself and have only personally had the continental European and the UK experience and that I am insanely jealous of all my US friends who have had the experience at a top college in the US, I kinda feel it’s not my place to say…
…but I agree that parts of that experience, ie the revenue sports part and the partying on other peoples dime part (be it parents, governments or full payers tuition) might be ditched and the college experience, not just the academic part but also the extracurricular and personal growth part, might be the better for it.
It’s certainly not a sustainable system in the long run, and fraying at the edges just like the European systems are. Debt is debt and will catch up with a national economy, be it private or government debt. We’ve all seen that.
There was a wonderful joke in Israel in the 1980’s whose particulars I don’t remember but the punchline involved a Russian taxi driver who was Concertmaster of a major symphony back in the USSR, and the guy who cleaned his cab, who had a PhD in engineering.
Using the example of Soviet immigration to the US and Israel as a way to extol the virtues of the Russian university system is both inaccurate and bizarre. There were thousands of immigrants with advanced degrees working as janitors, clerks, and other unskilled laborers after they left the Soviet Union. There were thousands of immigrants who WOULD have held prestigious jobs in Russia (except that they were fired once they applied to emigrate to Israel, or imprisoned).
I think the phenomenon you are trying to describe is the next generation- the children of the parents who were educated in the Soviet Union, who left as children, and who ended up going to university in the US, Israel, and in some cases Germany and other parts of Europe. I believe that this generation- born in Russia, educated elsewhere, has had significantly more academic and professional success than their parents.
But hardly a commentary on the success of the Soviet university system, since these folks left as children and were educated elsewhere.
Indeed. Guess what? Immigration isn’t easy and almost nobody gets placed in a high-paying job right after they immigrate. The reason most of them weren’t placed in great jobs right away is that no one wants to trust someone who comes from a different country, and there is always a period in which you have to adjust. Not to mention that almost all Americans have pretty much no idea about what is and isn’t a good school from abroad - of first world nations, it is probably the least interested in international politics.
Many of the older ones choose not to - 1.5-2x minimum wage is pretty livable in the US, and there is such a thing as not wanting to rebuild your career in another nation because you’re too old. I know many who were actually offered substantial career advancement (high-paying jobs during the recession in the early 90s) and refused to take them because in their old age, they were comfortable with having low-stress jobs that pay overtime. Those who were young enough, from maybe 10-35? They generally earn a degree in their new country (or finish the one they already started) and have a pretty successful rise up the career ladder. Not that this is unique to Soviet immigrants - this applies to pretty much everyone from every country that was ever an immigrant. I could give you many stories from any country about “highly respected professional at home, unskilled laborer in the US” immigrants because that is how it always works. The younger generation that has a chance to be acquainted with the new system is generally the better indicator of how effective the original culture is.
I will note that it’s not really what you learn in school that matters the most - education-wise, Europe/Russia/US offer about the same opportunities but with varied degrees of government support - but the general understanding of the value of education. A system that says “education for all is a basic right of all citizens” is going to produce more effective workers than a system that says “education stoopid, go into debt to party in college.” To be blunt, there is a very good reason why it is that it’s immigrant children in general that are more successful than old American families. This phenomenon is not how it works in most of the world.
Most of them left the country with $100 in their pocket and 2 suitcases. What do you want them to do? Majority did not occupy these positions for long.
As an alternative example I knew a company on Long Island in the early 90ties that had an application written in Fortran that produced flight plans. They could not find local talent that could pass job interview because they needed basic knowledge of geometry and trigonometry. Then they stumbled upon a first Soviet immigrant. Long story short they started hiring people right out of JFK for 30K/y (good money for people who do not speak English). The only issue was that these people settled in Brooklyn and had to drive but none of them had a car before or knew how to drive. Belt Parkway could be treacherous in the winter and many of them ended up in a ditch. The most talented driver in a rundown VW Rabbit run a red light and hit a local “nobleman” in a Rolls Royce.
As far as children of Soviet immigrants being more successful than their parents - this is not always true. Some of them became “lazy” Americans without immigrant drive.
Neo -first you claim that the success of Soviet Immigrants proves the superiority of their university system, and now you claim that it’s not what you learn that matters the most.
Of course Immigration is hard. But then your initial argument that we shouldn’t look to the productivity of the folks who attended universities in the Soviet era and who lived in the USSR (whose economic productivity vs. the rest of the developed world would be hard to argue as somehow superior) but that we should look to those who left- well which is it? Did the ones who leave end up as janitors and cab drivers? yes- because it’s tough to be an immigrant even if you have a PhD in mechanical engineering.
But you now have no data to support your theory that we should be modeling our educational system after the one in Russia.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I’m not being argumentative. But you need to pick a better country to extol.
And you need to read some of the sociological studies on second and third gen immigrants (i am second gen) to fully understand the phenomenon of Immigrants kids outperforming native born families kids.
“Education for all is a basic right for all citizens” isn’t even a tertiary factor. And certainly would not explain the rapid progress of many immigrants here who come from highly repressive countries where university education was the birthright of the elite or the children of the corrupt. And the data on who succeeds here does not support “Education for all is a basic right for all citizens” as being an important consideration.
You are entitled to your opinion but the facts don’t support how you feel about “Education for all is a basic right for all citizens”. And that’s ok. But Russia- really???
When I said:
In other words: it’s not about “what you learn” because they are still capable of learning the same material in the US, except without any of the public support. That has to come from their cultural origins.
It had its good aspects, especially its early education and its way of allocating students by ability to schools. It had many bad aspects, none of which I advocate, and many of which the USSR’s (Russia is very much not the only country in that block) successors have done a lot to change. Frankly I see no reason to debate the bad things about the system, or to try to adapt things that are not suitable for a different culture. I simply choose not to mention its downsides - I really don’t think too many people really care to debate the merits and demerits of a different country in a different time. It’s what can be applied to the world today that really matters.
Also, most of the world with anything resembling a “socialist” system has exactly the kind of system that the USSR used to have. Might explain why the rest of the world has a more advanced education system than the US.
Look to the success of those young enough to actually rebuild their career in a new country. Those who just finished school, or worked for only a few years in their home countries, have plenty of time to rebuild and to grow. Those who are in their 50s or 60s? Well, they’re more concerned about retirement, about helping their children get a good education / get married / etc. They’re not going to be working to climb the career ladder because they can already retire comfortably enough on low salaries.
Perhaps you could cite a few representative studies so that we know what it is that you’re talking about, specifically?
Yeah, I can see that.
Every country has its strengths and weaknesses. Tell me that no one could find severe fault with Norway, or Germany, or France, or the US. It’s important to learn from the good and to discard the bad. And it’s not like I didn’t mention many of the things that I didn’t like about the Soviet system. There are many, but one of the things it didn’t have was people in debt because of education or illness. And that’s something that can be adapted to this country.
Also, I talk about what I know. For example, I never lived in Norway, nor do I know a substantial number of Norwegian immigrants to the US. It’s stupid to talk about the virtues and weaknesses of something you have no experience with.
Yes, there is. It has much to do with the confidence, motivation, and intelligence of those willing to make the journey rather than taking the easy path of staying put. It take a lot of “get up and go” to get up and go … to another country.
In other words, legal immigrants to the United States represent a highly skewed sample set. Their subsequent success has everything to do with this skew and nothing to do with the educational system of their home countries.
The disproportionate success of immigrants is far more prevalent in the US than it is in most other countries.
Also, it very much does depend on the country of origin - immigrants from Israel, Europe, Russia, etc. tend to be much more successful than legal immigrants from Mexico, Syria, former colonial holdings in Africa, etc. Guess what all of the former countries have in common?
To say that culture is not important is to ignore reality.
They look racially white, and so don’t face as many barriers due to institutional racism?
Yes, I know that that’s not what you were going for, but that’s my point—there are so many variables in play here that to try to claim it’s some sort of simple cause-and-effect relationship between just one or a couple basic things on the one hand and level of success on the other is a fool’s game.
Or ask why the trajectory of the Hmong in the US differs so dramatically from immigrants from mainland China (neither group looks racially white).
Interesting idea, but I don’t buy it. There are plenty of whites and nonwhites in each country mentioned. There are certainly groups of immigrants that are disproportionately successful no matter where they go, regardless of race (Hebrews/Ashkenazis of any race seem to have disproportionate success in every country they went despite institutional opposition). There are differences between migration waves throughout history where even though everyone was white, there were “good immigrants” that people wanted and “bad immigrants” that were not wanted (often good=educated, bad=unskilled labor). And of course there are successful and unsuccessful whites and nonwhites everywhere.
The idea that it’s racism as the main issue doesn’t hold up. Nor does the idea that success does not depend on origins - obviously people are influenced by what kind of life they have had. So I think it’s reasonable to say that culture plays a large role in why some groups of people do better than others.
Ashkenazi Jews (only David Duke and the KKK uses the term Hebrews, by the way) had disproportionate success virtually everywhere up until they were either expelled, systematically murdered, or both. I’m really not sure you want to use the Jewish experience (some of the most prominent intellectuals and scientists known to man fled Nazi Germany) as the poster children for how to integrate immigrants into your society. The Poles, the Germans, the Czechs-- surely a checkered history lesson on integrating the “other”.
As usual, you argue against a point that nobody made. Did anyone say “we should marginalize people so they are more like the Ashkenazi?” Or that being successful leads to mass murder by necessity? No - the point was that culture has a lot to do with why they survive and thrive despite institutional hatred such as the kind that wants to kill them off. They aren’t the first or last population that has to deal with genocidal opposition.
Um… Ok? What exactly is your point?
Hebrew refers to ancestry rather than religion in a non-ambiguous manner. Way to just randomly appeal to racism?
On the topic of racism, culture, and education, I found an interesting article to share: http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html
Some snippets:
That’s 15 years ago and bloggy
I don’t want the communist or socialist system. I want the American system and that means I have to pay for the climbing walls and health center and all you can eat dining room. If we switch to a communist system, those who like the American system lose. Luckily, there isa choice and if you’d prefer to live somewhere else with a different system, that’s available. Go. Don’t try to change the American system to another system but still keep all the advantages of the American system - free choice of schools,majors, dorms, ability to transfer, big Saturday football. Some of us like it.
Hebrew is a dog-whistle term used by white supremacists. If you are in fact a white supremacist - which I doubt based on the evidence- then keeping using the term. But if not, I am trying to educate you that it is not a term used by “polite society” when describing people of Jewish ancestry. And since that appears to be who you are describing, use the term Jewish, or Jews.
You may have decided that Hebrew is a more descriptive moniker. However, the term has been co-opted by the Aryan Nation and other hate groups, and since they got there first (and have more aggressive social media and PR than you do) you are going to be better off using a less-loaded term in polite company.’
You could try “Israelite” which is an archaic term which has a specific scholarly meaning referring to Jews living before the Roman period. Again- you will not be communicating effectively since that is not a word that contemporary Jews use to describe themselves.
But try and stay away from the KKK, OK?
Interesting; that is the first time I have ever heard of such a use. In my social circles the words “Jew” and “Hebrew” are used pretty interchangeably, but Hebrew is more descriptive of the ethnicity. I guess we’ll just have to use “Jew” and live with that wee bit of ambiguity then.
Fair enough. If “the full college experience” is more important than education or the rest of your life and worth going into debt for, then the current system is exactly what works. That is indeed incompatible with a socialist/communist approach to “education for all.”
Different cultures, different priorities. Not that this view represents all or even most Americans, mind you.
I had a boss during the first Gulf War who was an Evangelical and he kept reassuring me that my family (living in Tel Aviv at the time) would be fine because Scripture predicted that the Hebrews would be saved long enough to accept Jesus as their savior. Since a scud had just fallen at the end of my family’s street, his concern was lovely although I did not take much stock in it as a prediction.
However, several of his colleagues (not Jewish) told him that the use of the word Hebrew to describe EITHER contemporary Jews living in Israel (who are actually Israeli, not Hebrews) OR contemporary Jews living in the US is highly offensive. There are lots of Israelis who are not Jewish- Christians, Muslims, Bahai, Buddhists, etc. who are both citizens of the state of Israel and practitioners of other religions- but the use of the word as he did was considered offensive even back in the 1990’s.
He came from an Evangelical tradition where Hebrew and Jews were used interchangeably and he was mortified. Fortunately, I might have been the first Jewish person he had ever known so it wasn’t like he’d been offending people for decades.
I’m not sure which ambiguity you are referring to however. Jews do not consider themselves to be an ethnic group in the way you seem to be suggesting. There are Jews from India (Cochin has had a Jewish community for thousands of years) who “look” Indian and there are Jews from Ethiopia who “look” Ethiopian and Jews from Syria and Iraq and Italy- all very old communities with a longstanding Jewish tradition.
HTH.