f

[rkbabang]

Of course, you probably don't think teachers are worth that much.  That's kind of what I mean by "respect and pay well".

 

It isn't about "worth" or "respect".  I respect janitors, but they usually don't make 100K/yr.  I don't respect many professional athletes yet they make much.  What is a teacher worth?  Just like with any other job, you are worth whatever the market will pay for your skills.

 

[DTEJD1997]

 

100K -- which I think is a stretch for a teacher -- isn't a high salary after 20 years.  What does a doctor make after 20 years?  What does a partner at a law firm make after 20 years?  Heck, 15 years ago I was making about that a couple years after graduation. 

 

Of course, you probably don't think teachers are worth that much.  That's kind of what I mean by "respect and pay well".

 

Yes, $100k is a bit of a stretch for a middle school teacher after 20 years, but it is not too far a stretch...

 

Doctors and partners in law firms have a LITTLE more education than a teacher.  They also work a bit harder...

 

Of course, most attorneys do not make as much as most teachers...There is TREMENDOUS risk for most attorneys, especially younger ones. 

 

Doctors and attorneys also have to pass professional licensing, which is a bit more difficult than what teachers undergo.  They also have to pay a bit more for their schooling/education.

 

So I think a lot of teachers are VERY well compensated, especially as compared to other occupations.  They have less debt, and safer career paths.  They typically have better benefits too.

 

I don't have any problem with teachers making a living, even a good living...but a middle school history teacher making $85K after 20 years with summers off, tremendous benefits, ability to retire after about 20 years?  That is a pretty good gig!

 

What is that teacher's pension worth?  Probably well over $1,000,000...

 

This is one of things leading to income equality in the USA...

 

 

 

 

[Martian]

 

High inequality damages the general economy.

 

People at the very top side of the inequality save far more and consume less than people at lower income (as percentage of income). This means higher saving rate and lower consumption rate when the inequality is at its extremes, which in turns leads to slower economic growth, if at all.

 

 

There can be full employment and the inequality would keep getting worse.  It's more about policies.

 

I think it depends on how they save. If their 'savings' is in Gold or some offshore account which dodges taxes then it does not help anybody but themselves. But if it in the form of stocks, bank deposits or bonds then it definitely helps the company/economy which in turn indirectly helps the employees/public. (even if they do not do charity like Buffett or Gates)

[RichardGibbons]

These are all fair replies.

 

That said, there's no intrinsic reason why a doctor has to work harder than a teacher.  Or have more education, or have licensing requirements that teachers don't have.  We could demand high quality and get rid of the teachers who can't make the cut.  We could demand the same of our teachers that we demand for our doctors, but we choose not to.  I wouldn't pay teachers more for the same work, but would for improved quality.

 

I think the main point is that Finland's figured out what works -- abolish private schools and pay teachers well.  North America is choosing another path that results in a significantly worse education. 

 

This seems to be an endeavor where I think it makes sense to look at the evidence of what seems to be working and adopt best practices.  Thus far, we're choosing not to do so, and over the long term, it will result in a competitive disadvantage.

 

 

[rkbabang]

Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: In History and Now

"The period between 1988 and 2008 witnessed the first decline in global income inequality since the Industrial Revolution..."

[Ham Hockers]

 

I think the main point is that Finland's figured out what works -- abolish private schools and pay teachers well.  North America is choosing another path that results in a significantly worse education. 

 

 

Another perspective

 

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25145

 

[Guest ajc]

David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

 

The creator of The Wire, David Simon, delivered a coruscating speech about the divide between rich and poor in America, and how capitalism has lost sight of its social compact.

 

"America is a country that is now utterly divided when it comes to its society, its economy, its politics. There are definitely two Americas. I live in one, on one block in Baltimore that is part of the viable America, the America that is connected to its own economy, where there is a plausible future for the people born into it. About 20 blocks away is another America entirely. It's astonishing how little we have to do with each other, and yet we are living in such proximity.

 

There's no barbed wire around West Baltimore or around East Baltimore, around Pimlico, the areas in my city that have been utterly divorced from the American experience that I know. But there might as well be. We've somehow managed to march on to two separate futures and I think you're seeing this more and more in the west. I don't think it's unique to America..."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire

[Packer16]

I think the real question is while many decry the inequality how many are will to do something about it that effects them personally.  Many want the other guy to fix/pay for the problem.  Income inequality becomes an issue if there is a consumption difference.  It should be called consumption inequality because that is what it is.  What about this proposal: If the folks that call for the higher minimum wage would spend less and put into a fund for the folks who get paid minimum wage.  That is putting money where your mouth is. 

 

Packer

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

I was with some "youngsters" this weekend who were in their 20's and maybe early 30's.  Most of them appeared reasonably intelligent, and they were ALL college educated.  Some of them had more than one degree...

 

What struck me was that the majority of them were working part time jobs.  Nobody was strictly "unemployed", all but one worked multiple part time jobs and were looking for a regular 9-5 gig.

 

I asked them about their situations and most were pessimistic as they could not seem to find steady, FULL TIME employment.  Some of their part time gigs were reasonably good as far as pay for the hours they worked, but you can't make a living at $20/hr., 12 hours a week.  They also did not see the part time positions eventually turning to full time jobs.

 

So I would suggest that perhaps one of the problems is not quite so much income inequality as it is many avenues of advancement seem to be shut off, especially to younger workers.  A couple of them voiced the opinion that "the deck is stacked against us".  They felt that employers are playing games by hiring multiple part time workers...that their education was worthless or vastly overpriced/overrated. 

 

This group of people seemed bright, reasonably hard working, and educated.  If they are having difficulties advancing, I wonder about other "regular" folks?

 

Of course, this was a very small sample size (5)  of a handful of people in the MidWest so perhaps it is different in other areas of the country.

[bargainman]

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/index.html?source=cnn_bin

 

The American Dream is supposed to mean that through hard work and perseverance, even the poorest people can make it to middle class or above. But it's actually harder to move up in America than it is in most other advanced nations....  Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility, according to Corak.

[Packer16]

I think the American Dream is misstated - who ever stated if you worked hard and persevered you get into the middle class?  If you work hard and persevered in a field demanded by employers then the statement is true.  If you go to school and take STEM subjects in demand then you will be fine.  Just ask aspiring actors and journalists and other star professions how many hard working and persevering folks do not make it?  I think the mobility is there if you want it but it may not be on your terms.

 

Packer

[JSArbitrage]

I'll add my 2 cents:

 

1. We don't have an education problem in the United States if you are upper middle class or wealthy.  We only have an education problem with the middle class and the poor.  Therefore, "market solutions" have little offer this problem.  You can't squeeze blood from a stone and you can't get $15k/year tuition per student from the middle class and the poor.  So, at some point, the government is forced to subsidize the education of the vast majority of Americans.  Saying the market alone will find a solution for this is asinine.

 

2. I like to take the easy route to problem solving - find people who were able to consistently solve this problem and copy them.  And the best school systems in the world are almost all big-government, very draconian styles of education. 

 

3. There will always be an education gap in the United States.  The government can't stop me from educating my children with my own money.  And I think education is extremely important.  But many, many Americans don't think education is important.  They just want a place to drop off their kids while they go to work.  I don't know if you can solve a problem where so many parents really don't give a crap.  My best friend is Korean and he said even the poor kids feel academic pressure from their parents.  You don't see that as much in the poor communities in the United States. 

[bargainman]

I think the American Dream is misstated - who ever stated if you worked hard and persevered you get into the middle class?  If you work hard and persevered in a field demanded by employers then the statement is true.  If you go to school and take STEM subjects in demand then you will be fine.  Just ask aspiring actors and journalists and other star professions how many hard working and persevering folks do not make it?  I think the mobility is there if you want it but it may not be on your terms.

 

Packer

 

Sure, but the point of the article is that overall it's easier to do this in countries outside of the United States even though it is the so called American dream. 

[bargainman]

I'll add my 2 cents:

 

1. We don't have an education problem in the United States if you are upper middle class or wealthy.  We only have an education problem with the middle class and the poor.  Therefore, "market solutions" have little offer this problem.  You can't squeeze blood from a stone and you can't get $15k/year tuition per student from the middle class and the poor.  So, at some point, the government is forced to subsidize the education of the vast majority of Americans.  Saying the market alone will find a solution for this is asinine.

 

2. I like to take the easy route to problem solving - find people who were able to consistently solve this problem and copy them.  And the best school systems in the world are almost all big-government, very draconian styles of education. 

 

3. There will always be an education gap in the United States.  The government can't stop me from educating my children with my own money.  And I think education is extremely important.  But many, many Americans don't think education is important.  They just want a place to drop off their kids while they go to work.  I don't know if you can solve a problem where so many parents really don't give a crap.  My best friend is Korean and he said even the poor kids feel academic pressure from their parents.  You don't see that as much in the poor communities in the United States.

 

This is actually quite interesting.  I don't know if you read the book outsiders, but he addresses some of this in that book.  Apparently there is a study about the schools, and they measured kids at the beginning of the year and the end of the year.  What they found is very interesting.  Apparently all the kids learned between the beginning and end of the year.  But what ended up happening was that the middle class and upper class kids either continued progressing or stayed the same over the summer months, whereas the poor kids ended up regressing during the summer months.  That basically suggests that the schools are not really the problem since they are actually teaching all kids equally.  Apparently it's the parents that are the problem.

 

Another interesting thing about the United States is that property taxes go to fund the schools.  That said there is also a Federal funding and state funding, but my understanding is that property taxes are the bulk.  This again leads to the issue that the kids in the better neighborhoods will have better funded schools which will once again propagate their advantages.

[meiroy]

 

 

 

A panel discussion with Mr. Druckenmiller and James J. Dunne III,

 

A fantastic discussion relating to this topic. Highly recommended.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

My best friend is Korean and he said even the poor kids feel academic pressure from their parents.  You don't see that as much in the poor communities in the United States.

 

 

Yeah, does the following statement make any sense?

 

The University of California is crammed with Asian students because they are the richest demographic in American society

[Carvel46]

"The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment. It’s something they have to do because it’s mandated and the lack of the highest quality education hasn’t negatively impacted their lives in a meaningful way. Step back for a second before you judge. Imagine it’s 2005, and you live in a small town in the middle of Ohio (where I grew up) and you don’t get a college degree. If you get a factory job and make $25k/year and your wife gets a factory job and makes $25k/year, you’re making $50k/year. But houses only cost $90,000 and food is affordable and you can get a loan for a car for $300/month. So you’re not doing terribly and the default state for your children is the same life. You can afford a house, food, have a car, and have weekends off.

 

So, what has the lack of an education done to the typical American’s life? It’s removed job security, screwed your retirement, and maybe set you up to go bankrupt if you get sick. There are no immediate consequences, there are no immediate consequences for your children, but there is an immediate cost. So the average person thinks of education as an expenditure. If you get sick when you’re 70, you’re screwed. Or if you don’t save in your 401k, you may have to work till you’re dead. Or maybe your children won’t be as competitive in a global workforce 30 years. Don’t believe me? Only 15% of kids taking the SAT pay for an out of school test prep course like Kaplan. Over 50% of Americans don’t have beyond a high school degree.

 

This fundamental investment vs. expenditure mindset changes everything. You think of education as fundamentally a quality problem. The average person thinks of education as fundamentally a cost problem."

http://avichal.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/why-education-startups-do-not-succeed/

[Guest longinvestor]

My best friend is Korean and he said even the poor kids feel academic pressure from their parents.  You don't see that as much in the poor communities in the United States.

 

 

Yeah, does the following statement make any sense?

 

The University of California is crammed with Asian students because they are the richest demographic in American society

 

Really? Because they are rich? How about merit, like test scores, HS grades etc. ? That's really funny because the Asians I know distinctly feel that they don't have an equal opportunity to get into the UC system because there is a quota system that underweights merit for "social balance". This issue is likely headed to the supreme court one day.

 

Another thing, the Asians I know, don't treat education as an expense or an investment. Parents approach it as their duty to put their kids through college without burdening them with debt. They routinely make sacrifices, work longer, save more and live frugally to make this happen. And no, all Asian Americans are not rich. Surely as the UC gets "crammed" with more Asians, they will be, one day.

 

Munger, in all intellectual honesty talked about how he welcomes the contribution of Asians in CA and he really does not think it is his problem that the next generation/s of Mungers have to compete harder. "They can figure it out".

[DTEJD1997]

"The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment.

 

So, what has the lack of an education done to the typical American’s life? It’s removed job security, screwed your retirement, and maybe set you up to go bankrupt if you get sick. There are no immediate consequences, there are no immediate consequences for your children, but there is an immediate cost. So the average person thinks of education as an expenditure. If you get sick when you’re 70, you’re screwed. Or if you don’t save in your 401k, you may have to work till you’re dead. Or maybe your children won’t be as competitive in a global workforce 30 years. Don’t believe me? Only 15% of kids taking the SAT pay for an out of school test prep course like Kaplan. Over 50% of Americans don’t have beyond a high school degree.

 

This fundamental investment vs. expenditure mindset changes everything. You think of education as fundamentally a quality problem. The average person thinks of education as fundamentally a cost problem."

 

Carvel46:

 

I hope our society STARTS to think of education as an investment.  At this point in time, a LOT of education is a VERY POOR INVESTMENT.  In fact, some education is a life ruining investment...Please see the thread I started "For Love or Money?".

 

I can give this board a second example...A good friend's daughter started her studies this Fall at a well known state university.  The school is good, with solid reputation.  The girl is bright and hard working...but not bright enough to qualify for a scholarship.  She would have got one at the local city college, but not the State U., which is where she wanted to go....

 

She is studying to be a nurse.  In 3 years when she graduates, will nursing be a good choice?  Probably...but who can say for sure?

 

So here is the rub...the family & girl are borrowing at least 90% of the cost of her tuition, which will be at LEAST $100k by the time she is done.

 

So this girl will graduate with $100k+ in debt.  That is assuming she succeeds in her studies (highly likely, but not a certainty), that she graduates in only 4 years, not 5.  What happens if she takes 6 months to find steady work after graduating?  What if she works part time and takes a YEAR to secure full time employment?

 

The interest ALONE on her debts will probably be $500 a month, perhaps more...

 

So is this a good investment?  From an economic standpoint, perhaps not...

 

She will probably have a good time, make friends, perhaps even find a spouse, so it is hard to gauge simply on economics.  How do you put a price on the intangibles?

 

So I would argue that she is taking a TREMENDOUS economic risk.  If there is any problem, any bump in the road, and she will be in very serious trouble.

 

The cost of education is going to shrink the middle class tremendously.  Heck, it has already started...

 

 

 

[yadayada]

I think Greenblatt has this charity where he sets up schools and allow kids by lottery. He basicly improved these schools, and average grades went up quite a bit. Education can be alot better and cheaper if you centralize the teaching. Make the kids watch short videos where things are explained by amazing teachers. Also tease them with what you can do if you have an expertise in those areas. Then they get interested. And have the kids practice on these things in the classroom. And just do away with classical teaching all together. 75% of my former teachers were all complete garbage at it.

 

Elon musk compared it to watching a movie in the cinema where you see the best actors playing out those roles vs watching that same play in the theaters with local actors.

 

I personally watched the physics videos on Khan academy, and you learn so much faster and in a more fun way, then if you had to listen to your local boring semi burned out physics teacher. And you can easily skip back when you missed something. If you didnt pay attention for like 3 minutes in class, you missed information that you need to get what the teacher says next. And then you dont get that, and it becomes just a large waste of time. And learning this way is also not fun at all, unless you are llike a really smart future college professor. Those are the types that do well in this enviroment.

 

But ofcourse doing it like this will hurt alot of teachers ego's, so the unions just block it every way they can.

 

[jay21]

"The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment.

 

So, what has the lack of an education done to the typical American’s life? It’s removed job security, screwed your retirement, and maybe set you up to go bankrupt if you get sick. There are no immediate consequences, there are no immediate consequences for your children, but there is an immediate cost. So the average person thinks of education as an expenditure. If you get sick when you’re 70, you’re screwed. Or if you don’t save in your 401k, you may have to work till you’re dead. Or maybe your children won’t be as competitive in a global workforce 30 years. Don’t believe me? Only 15% of kids taking the SAT pay for an out of school test prep course like Kaplan. Over 50% of Americans don’t have beyond a high school degree.

 

This fundamental investment vs. expenditure mindset changes everything. You think of education as fundamentally a quality problem. The average person thinks of education as fundamentally a cost problem."

 

Carvel46:

 

I hope our society STARTS to think of education as an investment.  At this point in time, a LOT of education is a VERY POOR INVESTMENT.  In fact, some education is a life ruining investment...Please see the thread I started "For Love or Money?".

 

I can give this board a second example...A good friend's daughter started her studies this Fall at a well known state university.  The school is good, with solid reputation.  The girl is bright and hard working...but not bright enough to qualify for a scholarship.  She would have got one at the local city college, but not the State U., which is where she wanted to go....

 

She is studying to be a nurse.  In 3 years when she graduates, will nursing be a good choice?  Probably...but who can say for sure?

 

So here is the rub...the family & girl are borrowing at least 90% of the cost of her tuition, which will be at LEAST $100k by the time she is done.

 

So this girl will graduate with $100k+ in debt.  That is assuming she succeeds in her studies (highly likely, but not a certainty), that she graduates in only 4 years, not 5.  What happens if she takes 6 months to find steady work after graduating?  What if she works part time and takes a YEAR to secure full time employment?

 

The interest ALONE on her debts will probably be $500 a month, perhaps more...

 

So is this a good investment?  From an economic standpoint, perhaps not...

 

She will probably have a good time, make friends, perhaps even find a spouse, so it is hard to gauge simply on economics.  How do you put a price on the intangibles?

 

So I would argue that she is taking a TREMENDOUS economic risk.  If there is any problem, any bump in the road, and she will be in very serious trouble.

 

The cost of education is going to shrink the middle class tremendously.  Heck, it has already started...

 

If she is just HS educated, maybe she makes 30k a year.  And if she becomes a nurse, let's say she will make 80k (I know it's less when you start but you can make more than 100k as a nurse I believe so I used a round figure somewhere in the middle).

 

So that's a 50k difference in pre-tax wages that she will gain.  I don't know the correct multiple to place on wages to get a value, but let's say it's 10.  So just HS educated she is worth 300k, as a nurse 800k.  The cost of education + foregone wages needs to be 500k to be breakeven.

 

Or we can put it another way: She will forgo 120k in earnings and have a 100k in debt for 220k in economic costs.  Therefore, assuming a ten multiple, she needs to increase her earnings by 22k to break even.

 

You can debate my assumptions.  But the point is that I think we can come up with a back of the envelope way of determining if that 100k debt is worth it.  I think to become a nurse, in most cases, it probably is. 

[Gamecock-YT]

"The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment.

 

So, what has the lack of an education done to the typical American’s life? It’s removed job security, screwed your retirement, and maybe set you up to go bankrupt if you get sick. There are no immediate consequences, there are no immediate consequences for your children, but there is an immediate cost. So the average person thinks of education as an expenditure. If you get sick when you’re 70, you’re screwed. Or if you don’t save in your 401k, you may have to work till you’re dead. Or maybe your children won’t be as competitive in a global workforce 30 years. Don’t believe me? Only 15% of kids taking the SAT pay for an out of school test prep course like Kaplan. Over 50% of Americans don’t have beyond a high school degree.

 

This fundamental investment vs. expenditure mindset changes everything. You think of education as fundamentally a quality problem. The average person thinks of education as fundamentally a cost problem."

 

Carvel46:

 

I hope our society STARTS to think of education as an investment.  At this point in time, a LOT of education is a VERY POOR INVESTMENT.  In fact, some education is a life ruining investment...Please see the thread I started "For Love or Money?".

 

I can give this board a second example...A good friend's daughter started her studies this Fall at a well known state university.  The school is good, with solid reputation.  The girl is bright and hard working...but not bright enough to qualify for a scholarship.  She would have got one at the local city college, but not the State U., which is where she wanted to go....

 

She is studying to be a nurse.  In 3 years when she graduates, will nursing be a good choice?  Probably...but who can say for sure?

 

So here is the rub...the family & girl are borrowing at least 90% of the cost of her tuition, which will be at LEAST $100k by the time she is done.

 

So this girl will graduate with $100k+ in debt.  That is assuming she succeeds in her studies (highly likely, but not a certainty), that she graduates in only 4 years, not 5.  What happens if she takes 6 months to find steady work after graduating?  What if she works part time and takes a YEAR to secure full time employment?

 

The interest ALONE on her debts will probably be $500 a month, perhaps more...

 

So is this a good investment?  From an economic standpoint, perhaps not...

 

She will probably have a good time, make friends, perhaps even find a spouse, so it is hard to gauge simply on economics.  How do you put a price on the intangibles?

 

So I would argue that she is taking a TREMENDOUS economic risk.  If there is any problem, any bump in the road, and she will be in very serious trouble.

 

The cost of education is going to shrink the middle class tremendously.  Heck, it has already started...

 

Absolutely. It baffles me to see friends/family go to private universities and get loaded with student loans when the state universities offer cheaper tuition. I guess people think there's a large difference in going to a 'name brand' school versus a public state university.

[twacowfca]

"The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment.

 

So, what has the lack of an education done to the typical American’s life? It’s removed job security, screwed your retirement, and maybe set you up to go bankrupt if you get sick. There are no immediate consequences, there are no immediate consequences for your children, but there is an immediate cost. So the average person thinks of education as an expenditure. If you get sick when you’re 70, you’re screwed. Or if you don’t save in your 401k, you may have to work till you’re dead. Or maybe your children won’t be as competitive in a global workforce 30 years. Don’t believe me? Only 15% of kids taking the SAT pay for an out of school test prep course like Kaplan. Over 50% of Americans don’t have beyond a high school degree.

 

This fundamental investment vs. expenditure mindset changes everything. You think of education as fundamentally a quality problem. The average person thinks of education as fundamentally a cost problem."

 

Carvel46:

 

I hope our society STARTS to think of education as an investment.  At this point in time, a LOT of education is a VERY POOR INVESTMENT.  In fact, some education is a life ruining investment...Please see the thread I started "For Love or Money?".

 

I can give this board a second example...A good friend's daughter started her studies this Fall at a well known state university.  The school is good, with solid reputation.  The girl is bright and hard working...but not bright enough to qualify for a scholarship.  She would have got one at the local city college, but not the State U., which is where she wanted to go....

 

She is studying to be a nurse.  In 3 years when she graduates, will nursing be a good choice?  Probably...but who can say for sure?

 

So here is the rub...the family & girl are borrowing at least 90% of the cost of her tuition, which will be at LEAST $100k by the time she is done.

 

So this girl will graduate with $100k+ in debt.  That is assuming she succeeds in her studies (highly likely, but not a certainty), that she graduates in only 4 years, not 5.  What happens if she takes 6 months to find steady work after graduating?  What if she works part time and takes a YEAR to secure full time employment?

 

The interest ALONE on her debts will probably be $500 a month, perhaps more...

 

So is this a good investment?  From an economic standpoint, perhaps not...

 

She will probably have a good time, make friends, perhaps even find a spouse, so it is hard to gauge simply on economics.  How do you put a price on the intangibles?

 

So I would argue that she is taking a TREMENDOUS economic risk.  If there is any problem, any bump in the road, and she will be in very serious trouble.

 

The cost of education is going to shrink the middle class tremendously.  Heck, it has already started...

 

Absolutely. It baffles me to see friends/family go to private universities and get loaded with student loans when the state universities offer cheaper tuition. I guess people think there's a large difference in going to a 'name brand' school versus a public state university.

 

Funding higher education is a salient example of what happens when government spots a good thing and then ruins the returns by throwing too much money at it.  Graduates with BA degrees are now earning substantially less than graduates with half as much debt who have completed a shorter trade school education --  not to mention the legions of unqualified and unmotivated ex students with substantial debts who dropped out without completing their courses.

[Morgan]

My best friend is Korean and he said even the poor kids feel academic pressure from their parents.  You don't see that as much in the poor communities in the United States.

 

 

Yeah, does the following statement make any sense?

 

The University of California is crammed with Asian students because they are the richest demographic in American society

 

I think he's saying that Koreans of all income levels generally value education more than low income American families. Which over two or three generations would make the Koreans quite wealthy, just as you say.

[ERICOPOLY]

My best friend is Korean and he said even the poor kids feel academic pressure from their parents.  You don't see that as much in the poor communities in the United States.

 

 

Yeah, does the following statement make any sense?

 

The University of California is crammed with Asian students because they are the richest demographic in American society

 

I think he's saying that Koreans of all income levels generally value education more than low income American families. Which over two or three generations would make the Koreans quite wealthy, just as you say.

 

 

I think the whole thing is dominated cultural influence (in other words, the parents).

 

Can we compare the test scores of Koreans educated in American public schools versus the test scores of Koreans educated in Korean public schools?

 

Then you would at least strip out some of the cultural influence and can better isolate whether the schools themselves are the problem.

 

I would find it interesting to see how their test scores stack up against the world.

 

You might even take the test scores from public schools of non-affluent Asian neighborhoods in Los Angeles.