Talk:Education in the United States/Archive 2006

Home Education
The article would benefit if somebody could add some material about homeschooling in the US. It would shed some light on the education being received by millions of children in this country. Unfortunately I've got no time to spare, but I thought I'd suggest it. RubyQ 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Equality amoung states and regions
According to one ranking system (Morgan Quitno),by michael henry reiser***** there are some interesting correlations between the locations (regions) of smart states and the not-as-smart states. Is it a valid arguement to present the NE and mid-west as having better school districts than say, the south? If it is corroborated through other sources, would it have a place in the wikipedia? BTW, here's a map of the statistics from that one website[[Image:US_smarteststate.jpg]. [[User:Cnelson|C. Nelson]] 04:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening sentence

 * Education in the United States is highly decentralized and varies widely.

Is this what most contributors to this encyclopedia believe? Is there any disagreement on this point outside of this web site? Elabro


 * Many industrialized countries (e.g. France) have a centralized Ministry of Education that micromanages all details of primary and secondary education from the capital. The amount of power delegated to American teachers, school principals, PTAs, district superintendents, district boards, state superintendents, and state boards of education would be unthinkable in those countries.


 * Frankly, everyone else thinks America is crazy since our style of education results in massive redundancy and bureaucracy. But we prefer it to being micromanaged by distant bureaucrats in Washington.  Try dealing with the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration and then you'll understand why Americans like local control over education.  --Coolcaesar 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying American education is less centralized than France's. But I've also read complaints from teachers, saying that their initiative is stifled; that they are forced to use curriculums that don't work - even in such simple subjects as math and reading.

Perhaps the opening sentence of the article should talk about the degree of government influence or at least the amount of government financing. Elabro 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that you have modified the intro to clear up the ambiguity you have identified (due to the range of possible interpretations of "decentralized"). Looks all right to me.  --Coolcaesar 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Although education is decentralized, unfunded mandates requiring certain classes to be taught rain upon American schools with frightening regularity (e.g. NCLB). Also, there is a trend towards changing the curriculum every few years, which some teachers find extremely stifiling.12.17.189.77 22:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

English
There is an ironically high number of speling and gramma mistakes in this article! I will take a look at it tomorrow (and doubtless insert some more of my own!) Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed your notice; it's for serious problems. I made a few little edits here or there, but definitely not anything worthy of a special notice. You of course are free to correct anything you want, but you can't add a notice like that to this article without concrete examples. And if you're going to do that, you might as well correct it on the spot. By the way, you misspelled "spelling" and "grammar". Thanks for your input!--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I added the notice. Thanks for the explanation. --  PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't actually add the notice, as the required edits were indeed minor. I shall check back tomorrow, but as you say there wasn't too much to be done anyway, although there are a few things which might be reworded. I only mentioned it because the article seems (to my inexpert eye) to be of an otherwise very high standard. PS- I apologise for my spelling and grammar- although you may like to consult Badgerpatrol 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Sorry, but I just had to have a bit of fun at your expense. I didn't really mean I thought your comment wasn't noteworthy. It's all just one big mixup it seems. Thanks, --naryathegreat | (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I did you! No worries, Badgerpatrol 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who runs community colleges?
California and Illinois have locally funded community college districts (independent of local governments) subject to supervision by a state agency (which is independent of the state university systems). Ohio and New York appear to have placed their community colleges under the supervision of the state university system. Can anyone provide a concrete example to justify the current claim in the article that community colleges are usually run by counties? Otherwise I'm going to change it in a few days.

Also, one more question. Where did community colleges come from in other states? In California, they developed out of junior college programs originally started by school districts, which are subject to loose supervision from the state Department of Education in Sacramento but are independent of local governments. --Coolcaesar 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has responded. I'm changing the article. --Coolcaesar 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph
It says in the second paragraph that 72 percent of students aged 12 to 18 get by the usual sequence, meaning that the remaining 28 percent (which is more than a quarter) gets retained at least once in their education. Does Wikipedia have an article whose subject is being retained?? Georgia guy 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate
Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gifted ed.
Do you think it would be appropriate to add something to the extent of "In general, gifted education legislation and funding is lacking or non-existent, with notable exceptions in Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and Oklahoma", or something similar? Gifted education is an important aspect of special education, and I think it deserves at least a passing mention. --Schuyler s. 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I don't see gifted education as part of special education. My impression was that special education is for people who have difficulty keeping up with their age cohort and gifted education is for people ahead of their cohort.


 * As for your main point, I agree it deserves special mention, although you should also note that there are many private university-affiliated programs like CTY and EPGY (I have attended both). --Coolcaesar 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought I'd put it under special education because, at the very heart, it is exactly that: "special" education. Out of curiosity, what campus and session did you go to when you did CTY? I keep running across fellow CTYers on wikipedia... its kinda' funny. --Schuyler s. 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

United States compared to other countries
I once read that the one reason for the United States dismal international ranking in the field of education is that the students weren't motivated to put forth any effort on the tests. Does anyone know anything about this?74.67.231.110 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What tests do they use? If they don't use the SATs I don't think most people know about these exams, whatever their names are. 68.39.174.238 23:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove all schools in status ladder?
Opinion varies. For objectivity, UW has to be included. Otherwise, we should just remove all schools. Just cite the reference and let each user makes up his/her own mind. --128.208.83.87 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. To delete mention of all schools distorts the "status ladder" section, and renders it almost meaningless. After all, how can one describe the "status ladder"--an influential conception in the American popular mind, which manifests in many ways, e.g. college rankings, etc--without the ladder's 'steps,' (in this case, the individual schools?) Above you cite objectivity as a reason for including the University of Washington in this section... Alas, objectivity does not apply to the "status ladder;" it's an instrinsically subjective subject. :) No offense meant.

This section serves a purpose; namely, to address the current obsession within American culture regarding an educational institution's perceived 'prestige,' and the ramifications of this obsession. Very, very few would argue with the popular, perceived prestige of the following private colleges/universities: Ivies, Little Ivies, Seven Sisters, MIT, Stanford, Duke, Caltech, Northwestern, U. Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. Similarly, few would argue with the popular perceived prestige of California Berkeley, Virginia, and Michigan. California Los Angeles, Washington, and Florida--although each excellent, and certainly far above average regarding research, funding, and calibre of students--do not yet enjoy the same standing in the American popular mind as the aforementioned schools. Perhaps they will shortly, (perhaps within the next ten or so years,) but not yet.

Let us write regarding general public perception, (i.e. the average American) and (as much as possible) without our own particular biases. In this spirit, I vote that we omit the schools that cause considerable controversy. If a school causes great controversy, this indicates that it has not yet achieved the perceived status of the others... (Unless of course, it's a Harvard man disparaging Yale, U. Chicago vs. Northwestern, or Amherst vs. Williams--the traditional rivalries which flare up periodically.) 71.234.216.249 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the status perceptions are regionally linked. I agree with you about every assertion you made but three.  In areas outside of the Midwest, Northwestern is often confused with Northeastern University, Michigan is not that well-known except as a member of the Big Ten and for its affirmative action controversy, and Los Angeles is definitely on the way up due to its regular media appearances (CSI, Numbers, the Nutty Professor, etc.) and the quality of its graduate schools.  Of course, I am sure that Wikipedians based in the Midwest would probably vehemently disagree.
 * Anyway, I agree that the Ivy League, Berkeley, Virginia, Johns Hopkins, U. Chicago, Caltech, Stanford, Duke, and the Seven Sisters are all top-tier schools, with the private schools generally ahead of the public schools on average, but the public schools are better in a variety of specific areas. Can we all agree on that much?--Coolcaesar 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Coolcaesar. Los Angeles is definitely on the way up. Michigan is best known for its athletics programs. As mentioned, Florida and U. Washington are on the way up. Also, WUSTL is on the rise.

Regarding Northwestern: its name engenders confusion with various schools, (Northeastern, as mentioned, various Northwestern colleges, Northwestern State Unis, etc.) Regardless of this name confusion, I think you fight an uphill battle if, indeed, you argue that Northwestern should not be included among the top schools on the "status ladder." Remember, most Americans concerned with the "status ladder" exhibit more than a passing interest in college rankings, (which helped to codify the "status ladder" in the first place, and continue to influence public perception.) Over the past twenty years, USNews (the most popular Uni rankings in America,) ranked Northwestern's undergraduate program as high as #9, and as low as #14, (currently #12, ahead of the following above-mentioned schools: Cornell, Brown, U. Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, Virginia, etc.) Similarly, its business school has consistently ranked in the top 3, law school in the top 10, and medical school in the top 20. Its journalism program ranks #1. Its endowment totals $4.92 billion--11th largest of all singular universities, (i.e. not 'university systems.') By contast, in its most recent rankings, USNews ranks Northeastern U. in Boston, MA #115--its highest ranking ever; its endowment totals $1/8 of Northwestern's, despite a much larger enrollment, and none of its graduate programs rank similarly with Northwestern's. In other words, those concerned with the "status ladder" know Northwestern's status, (as opposed to Northeastern's, to continue your example.) Other than potential name confusion, it's difficult to argue that Northwestern does not belong in this "prestigious" group. No offense meant, Coolcaesar. LuMas 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The appropriate thing to do here is to go with what is citeable. Find sources, people.  I agree that Coolceasar's statement is accurate, but I am less certain that reliable citations can be found to say Ivy > other private schools > public schools.  I'm certain that citations can be found regarding holding the Ivy League in high regard, and perhaps some references to "Ivy Plus"; I'd also suggest looking for references to the reputation of Public, Southern, and Little Ivies, both because they are terms in somewhat common use, and because, more pragmatically, we can wikilink to them.  I imagine this section will ultimately say that Ivies are held in high regard, though a number of other institutions are highly ranked, with a wiki link to the Princeton Review ratings.  If we're going to make statements about prestige, though, we need to have some of those adorable ref numbers to go along with them. JDoorj a m     Talk 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, JDoorjam. This article should not make "Ivy > other private schools > public schools" distinctions. Rankings do not support this, after all. MIT, for example, enjoys "perceived prestige" (rankings, endowment, etc.) equal to, if not surpassing most Ivies. To my mind, liberal arts colleges compose a different category than the "Ivy plus" (as you write) research universities--different social environment, educational focus, etc. This article might deal with public universities differently as well--not as 'less than' "Ivy plus" institutions, but as a distinct group. Regarding "Southern Ivies"--do any of these rank with the private "Ivy plus" institutions listed, (e.g. in the USNews Top 15?) Regardless, I agree with you, JDoorjam. Citations needed. LuMas 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JDoorjam asked me to look at this. I've only taken a quick peek. This is an interesting example of the kind of frustrating material that Wikipedia has a lot of. It really seems to me to be reasonably well written and accords pretty well with my own (non-expert) impressions. The status ladder exists, and is as described.


 * But.


 * It is a piece of original work. I haven't looked at the edit history to see whether it is a collaborative, consensus work, but in any case it is not firmly anchored to source citations of reliable sources.


 * Oddly enough, I have less of a problem with the naming of individual schools than with the content as a whole. Although citations need to be found, it should be trivially easy to find citations supporting statements such as "the United States' most well-known university is Harvard." After all, in 1893 Baedeker's guide called Harvard "the oldest, richest, and most famous of American seats of learning," and I suspect a few other sources have said similar things since then. Similarly, the articles on the Public Ivies and the Little Ivies contain fairly good sources for the list of schools that are included therein.


 * I think the section needs to be liberally laced with "citation needed" tags, and if it can't be supported by good citations it should go.


 * The first one that needs a citation is the lead sentence: "American universities and colleges seem status-conscious compared to their foreign counterparts." I'm speaking from genuine ignorance here, but I wonder whether this is true, or whether it was written by someone from the U. S. who is more aware of the subtleties in the U. S. I remember acquaintances from the Netherlands who insisted that the Netherlands did not have anything resembling the regional differences in accent and social status the U. S. has. We asked why, then, they were always teasing a colleague who was Frisian. And we pressed them on whether Dutch news broadcasters sounded like they came from a certain place in the Netherlands and they instantly said that news broadcasters sounded like they came from Amsterdam...


 * I honestly don't see any need for major surgery. I think social realities should be acknowledged. But what can't be sourced must eventually go. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * P. S. The current section, like some other discussions, sort of tap-dances around the issue of social elitism and implies that there is only one kind of status or prestige involved. The influence of the WASP establishment has declined greatly since the Vietnam War, but I doubt that it is entirely gone. I doubt that the conspicuous participation Yale graduates in the White House and as presidential candidates during the past decade is wholly explained by Yale's academic status. And as far as I know, the likes of Porcellian have not closed their doors... whether a Phi Beta Kappa key or a Porcellian pig is more valuable to a job-seeker, I wouldn't presume to know.


 * I think the Ivy > other private schools > public schools is valid. It is not based on academic rankings. There's good evidence, in my opinion, that U. S. News and World Reports consciously jiggers its rankings to include seemingly objective factors that are in fact stand-ins for the social factors that are important to students and their families. That is, the reason why Harvard, Yale and Princeton occupy the top three slots in 2006 is because they do occupy the top positions in the status ladder... which is not the same as the academic rankings ladder.


 * P. S. Hey, about that opening sentence: "American universities and colleges seem status-conscious compared to their foreign counterparts." Well, what about Asian schools? It just occurred to me that I've been reading for decades about the intense pressure in Japan, and you regularly read about students committing suicide because they didn't do well in entrance examinations. Well, for example, here's one: Stress high during China's student exams, "A teenager's suicide after being barred from a key high school exam for not tying back her hair underscores the intense pressure on millions of Chinese who began taking annual college entrance tests Wednesday." I can't imagine this happening in the U.S. If students are killing themselves over college admissions, I'd bet that it also matters which college they get into.


 * Come to think of it, surely, in the UK graduating from the University of Birmingham isn't the same as graduating from Oxford. How do you measure the difference in rung height between the University of Birmingham and Oxford? Is it greater or less than the difference between the University of Michigan and Harvard? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Dpbsmith. Asian universities--particularly those in China and Japan--exhibit status-consciousness similar to those in the U.S. Furthermore, in my experience, having attended university in both England (Oxford) and the U.S., I can attest to similarities regarding the "status ladder" in these two countries. However, compared with American universities, fewer English universities occupy the 'top tier' in the English public mind, (25 or so in the U.S., compared with 5 or so in England.) In the past ten years, Australian universities have attempted to codify their fledgling "status ladder" by forming 'The Group of Eight', Australia's answer to the 'Ivy League'. In other words, "status ladders" exist in many countries, and do not seem unique to the U.S. Conversely, however, many universities throughout mainland Europe, (and even in Canada, to a lesser degree,) do not exhibit similar status-consciousness; for example, universities in Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, etc. To address this in the "status ladder" article, perhaps remove the first sentence?


 * Also, to address comments regarding the "status ladder" and the WASP establishment--at this point, few American colleges/universities remain strongly associated with it in the popular mind, (the Big Three, certainly--Havard, Yale, and Princeton--also Dartmouth, the Little Three, and Wellesley.) In the abscence of an hegemonic, American social elite, graduation from one of these institutions seems to create a (very slight) social distance between oneself and others, (although admittedly, any lingering WASP-associated 'magic' seems to wear off a few years following graduation.) Furthermore, this WASP-associated 'magic' becomes increasingly less relevent as the college-rankings-obsessed, Generation Y enters the workforce. A new 'Top 15' magic has replaced the traditional WASPy ideal; for example, institutions traditionally unassociated with WASPs, (e.g. CalTech, Stanford,) seem just as "prestigious" to Generation Y as those traditionally associated with WASPs. College rankings (particularly those in USNews and Princeton Review) have influenced this young generation to such a degree.


 * Lastly, let us not overestimate the importance of the American "status ladder." It seems to hold sway while 1) applying to college, 2) bragging about where you went to college, (or where your son/daughter went to college,) 3) applying to postgraduate professional schools or Master's/PhD programs 4) applying for a job during the first several years following graduation from one of these schools. Ultimately, one must prove one's own merit, although graduating from one of these schools helps (slightly) toward doing so, initially. Of course, this is just my opinion. Does it seem accurate? Now I will attempt to find citations for the article. 71.234.216.249 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent debate, guys. However, throwing in my two cents here. I think the only difference between an elite, prestigious university is NOT the quality of education, it's in the BRAND NAME only. In response to Dpbsmith, while I respect your opinion and can definitely see where you're coming from, one can certainly get a great education from Wichita State if one puts in the effort. Obviously, Harvard and the Ivy League have lots more cache than Wichita State, but a Wichita State grad who demonstrates drive and the commitment to succeed will go far in life.

I think the quote about grads from elite universities giving jobs to other grads from elite universities sums it up perfectly. I also agree that networking is better at elite schools. However, speaking from anecdotal experience (and as one of those average joe state U graduates), I have worked with plenty of Ivy League grads, and frankly speaking, they're not as good as they claim. in fact, almost all of my ivy League co-workers have serious sense of entitlement attitude, thinking that they can get what they want b/c of their Ivy League pedigree. Many do not demonstrate what it means to earn your way through your job. I admit this has soured my view of Ivy Leaguers a bit, but at least I have seen first-hand that Ivy League graduates (generally) are not really "better" for the job force than the typical state U grads. Thanks. Teknosoul02 20:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes and references for "status ladder"
Just a holding area for stuff as I find it. Others feel free to add to it. To be selectively incorporated in that section at some time... perhaps. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"He, no Ivy League sophisticate but a broad-shouldered hero of State U, a representative of the common people..." (in reference to a 1939 Collier's cover illustration). p. 176

"Mothers, counselors, 'academic' teachers, and peers may encourage him to shoot for the distant Ivy League or Stanford, debt-conscious fathers, teammates, phys. ed teachers, and other loyal alumni to head for Proximate State U." , p. 120.

"By the end of this period, the well-bred WASPS no longer dominated the prestige schools and they made up just an infinitesimal slice of the educated class. The elite schools had preserved their status. The proportion of Ivy League graduates in Who's Who has remained virtually constant throughout the past 40 years." p. 30

Then there's this one. Oh my dear, oh my goodness. No, I don't think I'll use it in the article. Among other things I believe it's self-published. But you can hardly beat it for plain-speaking articulation of a point of view:
 * "'Ivy League' universities cost a lot of money. Academically, do you get a better education there? No. There are just as good, or better professors at state-run institutions of higher learning. Then why do folks pony up? Because the big-bucks jobs go to the Ivy-League[sic] grads. It works! ... A degree from Brown, from Yale, from Hah-vahd, while academically no better than one from Indiana U. or Wichita State, is FAR MORE MARKETABLE. Graduates of these 'exclusive' (meaning they exclude folks) schools higher other grads, for big-ticket jobs. The 'elites' go to the 'elite' schools, so a degree from one of them is seen as a badge of 'elite' status. You wanna job? The fiction of 'superiority' has become the self-perpetuating fact of 'preference.'" p. 67.

Nothing against Wichita State, mind you, but to say Harvard is academically no better than Wichita State is, I think, stretching it... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you say that the "status ladder" includes all schools with SAT scores above 1400, (for the new test, approximately 2000?) Regarding universities, this seems to divide the wheat from the chaff, (so to speak, of course,) no? 71.234.216.249 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because I don't think the "status ladder" is based exclusively on academic merit. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Shirley Levin, of Rockville, Maryland, who has worked as a college-admissions consultant for twenty-three years, concurs: 'Never have stress levels for high school students been so high about where they get in, or about the idea that if you don't get into a glamour college, your life is somehow ruined.'"

"Admissions mania focuses most intensely on what might be called the Gotta-Get-Ins, the colleges with maximum allure. The twenty-five Gotta-Get-Ins of the moment, according to admissions officers, are the Ivies (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale), plus Amherst, Berkeley, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Pomona, Smith, Stanford, Swarthmore, Vassar, Washington University in St. Louis, Wellesley, and Williams." (ibid)

"'"Any family ought to be thrilled to have a child admitted to [the University of Wisconsin at] Madison, but parents obsessed with prestige would not consider Madison a win,' says David Adamany, the president of Temple University." (ibid)

"Today an Ivy diploma reveals nothing about a person's background, and favoritism in hiring and promotion is on the decline; most businesses would rather have a Lehigh graduate who performs at a high level than a Brown graduate who doesn't." (ibid)

"'There's a clear benefit to the top fifty or so colleges,' [Caroline Hoxby] says.'Connections made at the top schools matter. It's not so much that you meet the son of a wealthy banker and his father offers you a job, but that you meet specialists and experts who are on campus for conferences and speeches. The conference networking scene is much better at the elite universities.'" (ibid) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In What's the value of an Ivy League education? the Dartmouth Review describes a (relatively) scientific study (by Krueger and Dale) on the subject. It addresses 'meritocracy' at Nation's elite schools. The article describes the following schools as elite: "Yale, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Williams, and Swarthmore." Researchers conclude, "It's not the school that has the magic touch... It's the students.” LuMas 19:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Much has changed in who now constitutes 'the chosen' -- the elite prep schools, for example, can no longer count on a high proportion of their graduates getting into the Big Three. 'As a consequence, deep apprehension about college admissions now extends to the highest reaches of the upper class,' Karabel writes. But much remains the same. 'At the same time, the children of the working class and the poor are about as unlikely to attend the Big Three today as they were in 1954. It is no exaggeration to say that the current regime in elite college admissions has been far more successful in democratizing anxiety than opportunity.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of View Problem
In one section of the article, the following quote appears. I do not think that it follows the PoV requirements, but I'm wondering what other Wikipedians think. However, America continues to develop the well rounded student and does not specialize students into their strongest areas of intellegience until college, where the student may decide what their specialty may be. Geoking66 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That statement is poorly written ("ability" would be a better word than "intelligence" in this context) but as a factual assertion it is roughly correct. It needs some editing, though. --Coolcaesar 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about the factual assertion. It has been my understanding that it rather places more emphasis on extracurricular activities, not on actual specialisation. For comparision-purposes, in an Austrian Gymnasium (public school, 8 years, 4 years junior from 10 to 14, 4 years senior from 15 to 18. A typical school week can range from 30 hours a week in the beginning to up to 38 hours at the end. The school ends with the Matura which is required for university enrollment) you usually have the following subjects over 8 years: English, German, one other language (two in the case of some schools), maths, biology, physics, chemistry, geometry (two years in all schools, some schools offer another two years), physical education, religious education (only for students with a denomination, but you can opt out with your parents permission if under 14, or on your own authority if you are older than that), geography and economy (combined subject), art, musical education (can choose betwen art and musical education for the final two years), history and civics (combined subject), philosophy (1 year), psychology (1 year).


 * In the last 3 years you have to choose an additional 8 points (1 point = 1 hour class every week, the points can be freely distributed over the 3 years) worth of classes; which classes you can pick depends on the school.


 * There are different school types, so there might be a variance in the selection of subjects. There are other, more specialized kinds of schools also ending with the Matura, but they are only attended by a only a smaller part of an age-group. The german Gymnasium is somewhat different, but the choice of subjects is in large parts the same as in Austria.
 * --Wollviech 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that many European countries have vocational training at the secondary school level which is generally unavailable in the United States. Most American high schools are overwhelmingly directed towards producing future undergraduates who will go to college and earn four-year bachelor's degrees.  However, most schools in turn also fail to serve the large number who will not attend college.  In turn, they either drop out, or they limp along until they get their high school diploma. Then they attend a two-year vocational school to get a certificate in a technical field they can earn a living in, such as automotive repair technician or cosmetologist.
 * For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger likes to talk about the fact that he took a class in sales skills in high school in Austria, where he acquired basic business skills that in turn enabled his successful career. Such practical classes are extremely rare at the high school level in the United States.
 * There are experimental high school programs in which one can acquire useful certificates like a Cisco Systems technician certification, but those are rare. Most high school "shop" and computer lab classes cover very basic material, and are not sufficient preparation for real-world work.  --Coolcaesar 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vocational training in secondary education is usually done either in a form of a 3-years apprenticeship where one does learn the trade on the job and earn a little bit of money. Schooling is only secondary here and usually done in a blocked way. However, most young people that choose this track usually 'only' has attended 4 years of Secondary School. (If said in the context of education in german-speaking countries, Secondary School should be understood at a 4-year school that finishes when you are 14, not a 8-year highschool) Approx. 60% of an age-group choose this track.


 * There are also higher vocational-technical schools, which provide an education considered on the same level as a Gymnasium. They have a 5 years-programm that offers vocational training and require that the student either graduated the junior-part of the Gymnasium or a Secondary School. However, only a small minority of like 10% of an age-group attend such schools.


 * However, by far the largest part of the pupil that wish to enroll at a university attend a Gymnasium, which primary purpose is to a) provide a general education and b) prepare for university. Vocational training is rather irrelevant and not expected of that kind of school. About 30% of an age-group attend this kind of schools; these 30% account for approx. 80% of all university students. There are 3 main-branches of this school: 'Regular', focus on a humanistic education, with Latin in the 3rd to 8th year, plus another langauge from the 5th to the 8th year (either a contemporary language or ancient greek); 'Science', with focus on maths and natural sciences. Mandatory second foreign language (or Latin) from the 5th to the 8th year, as well as either projective geometry or increased biology and ecology-courses in the 7th and 8th year. 'Economy': Additional economy- and math-classes; however, the math thought here differs from the one taught in the 'Science'-branch and has a heavy emphasis on requirements in the field of economy. All 3 branches also teach among other subjects chemistry, biology, history, civics, physics, psychology, philosophy, music, literature and arts.
 * --Wollviech 08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a problem in that comment as well (See "dubious statement" below). Since it's been there since ATLEAST August 2006 and nothing's been done to fix it, I am going to remove it. 68.39.174.238 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Admission criteria for U.S universities
What are the criteria U.S universities use to admit undergraduate students ?

Just as a comparison, in England, on top of a minimum of 11 years of compulsory schooling (grades 1-11), students who want to pursue a university degree are required to go first through two additional years of pre-university schooling (grades 12 and 13, commonly known in the UK as the sixth form). In order to be admitted into a university, sixth-form students need at least 3 A-Level certificates, which can be obtained by getting an overall aggregate passing grade in a series of national exams that are written and graded by independent exam boards and taken respectively at the end of grades 12 and 13. In general, students take 4 or 5 subjects in year 12, getting so-called preliminary AS-level certificates, and then drop to 3 subjects only in year 13 to get full A-level certificates. A university may require then that, on top of the 3 minimum A-level certificates, the student hold for example an additional contrasting AS-level certificate on a different subject.

A-Level certificates have an associated letter grade classification (A, B, C, etc.) which is based on the student's final mark as a percentage of the maximum possible points that can be achieved in a given subject (e.g. > 80 % would be a grade A, 70-80 % a grade B, and so on). Most universities set then a minimum qualification criterion to admit students. For example, in top universities like Cambridge or Oxford, the minimum required combination for most intended majors would be grades A/A/A respectively in 3 specific subjects X,Y,and Z. Since all students take either the same or equivalent A-level exams, the grades on their certificates can be directly compared irrespective of the particular school they attended during sixth-form. However, since the number of candidates meeting the minimum qualification cutoff tends now to be higher than the available places in the freshman class, universities have to use additional criteria for selection. That includes most often personal interviews with candidates and, quite frequently for the more competitive majors, requiring that candidates take additional aptitude tests (like TSA, BMAT, LNAT, STEP, etc.). More recently, in order to better assess a candidate's strenght or weakness in specific areas, universities like Cambridge and Oxford have also begun to look at the marks achieved in each unit taken by the student in the 2-year A-level program, as opposed to taking only the final certificate letter grade into consideration.

Is the U.S. system any similar to what I described above for the UK ? If not, how does it differ ? Thanks. 200.177.5.144 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See College admissions in the United States.--Coolcaesar 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious statement
I find the statement at the end of "Competitiveness" very questionable; it sounds like it's trying to refute previous, cited, statements with an uncited one. 68.39.174.238 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)