• to provide graduates and the nation at large with the skills needed to be effective in a global, increasingly competitive economy, in which corporations reach across nations and geographical divides in search of new markets, more efficient production, and less costly labor; and

• to close the achievement gap between those students in this country who are advantaged—educationally, culturally, and economically—and those who are not.

Do you think the education systems in your countries have achieved this. you are allowed to give a yes or no comment.

SamKrening:

you are allowed to give a yes or no comment.

 

...well, yes and no....

I think higher education is a lot more useful when it focuses on meeting the needs of individual students as customers rather than when it focuses on meeting the needs of "the nation at large".

Sorry, but the question is so laden with muddle-headed collectivist thinking that it's basically unanswerable as is.

-=Steve=-

Good day! My name is Cristine Terrado. I am a second year college student at the University of Santo Tomas currently taking up Elementary Education Major in Special Education.

Yes. The country has already produced a great number of competitive talents. we can see it from all the things Filipinos world wide have achieved. Some Filipinos are being hired to work for international companies. Although not everybody here are given the opportunity to study and work abroad, there are still a lot of people who greatly excel in their chosen field of work and instead of using their talents to improve the status of their own contry, they choose to use it for the benefit of other countries. we export manpower.

No. The achievement gap is a global problem. Not only here in our country but in others as well. More often than not, only those who are advantaged are given the opportunity they need to succeed. They monopolize the system thereby subjugating the ones who are less advantaged. People who are less advantaged are being marginalized. No matter where we look or how we look at it, this is the reality everywhere.

i agree with her..

her opinion really sums up what's been happening in most developing countries..

skilled worker are being hired to serve another country and the gap between people who are advantaged and those who are not is really a global problem.

As far as access to opportunity goes, I think we're going to have to not look to government to provide it, especially in the developing world.  I recently read an interesting editorial in the Connections newsletter from the Commonwealth of Learning that talks about the important role the private sector will have to play in order to accelerate access to higher education:

http://www.col.org/news/Connections/2009feb/Pages/Editorial.aspx

SamKrening:

Recently I was reading an article discussing education In developing countries. this is what was said, higher education has two fundamental responsibilities to help ensure the continued well-being of the nation today:

• to provide graduates and the nation at large with the skills needed to be effective in a global, increasingly competitive economy, in which corporations reach across nations and geographical divides in search of new markets, more efficient production, and less costly labor; and

• to close the achievement gap between those students in this country who are advantaged—educationally, culturally, and economically—and those who are not.

Do you think the education systems in your countries have achieved this. you are allowed to give a yes or no comment.

In the U.S.: Yes and no. Yes, because they have the finest university system in the world, bar none. Also, they have almost universal access to tertiary education.

 No, because the U.S. does not have a tertiary framework outside its higher education system. There is no framework for workplace qualifications, nor bridges between workplace learning credentials and entry into universities to earn degrees. (Although many universities employ evaluations of prior learning to award credit and advanced standing.)

Finally, both--universities and workplace learning--are largely market-driven. Workplace learning certainly is, where employers decide in a very decentralised manner who is trained in what, when, and how. And in higher education, many for- and not-for-profit universities exist primarily as a response to market demand, not for pure education and/or research. But none of this is planned. It just happens. Kind of like the U.S. economy over the past 25 years.

They need a centralised and planned approach to workplace and higher learning if they're to use their human capital to pull themselves--and, thus--all of us--from the economic train wreck we've "enjoyed".

For example, they could take the higher education section of the Department of Education, fold it into the Department of Labour, add elements of the Department of Commerce, and create a whole new entity designed to foster the growth of human capital--all Americans, really. Build a qualifications framework that has multiple entry and exit points, and focuses on 21st century challenges. That truly would be change Americans could believe in.

Lester, are you suggesting that the U.S. federalize its approach to higher education and workforce training?  There are already clear, established ways to equate workforce training and similar things like military experience to academic credit, most notably through ACE recommendations.  Moreover, we've built the best regarded university system in the world in large part on the principle of university autonomy.  Why fix what isn't broken?

-=Steve=-

SteveFoerster:

Lester, are you suggesting that the U.S. federalize its approach to higher education and workforce training?  There are already clear, established ways to equate workforce training and similar things like military experience to academic credit, most notably through ACE recommendations.  Moreover, we've built the best regarded university system in the world in large part on the principle of university autonomy.  Why fix what isn't broken?

-=Steve=-

Yes, I am. It is broken. As Wade reminds us, governed markets, not free markets, work best. (The "Asian Miracle" and the current U.S. depression help tell us that.)

The power of the U.S. government could ensure workers were trained in today's (and tomorrow's) technologies, not yesterday's. The U.S. auto industry, ailing for decades, demonstrates this inclination towards living in the past--as long as it holds together. But when it doesn't--CRASH!

Imagine workplace qualifications in areas such as alternative energies, mass transit, knowledge management, etc. Instead of seeing Michigan auto workers lament the demise of a long-lost concept--paying people 20 bob or more per hour to do what costs much less elsewhere in the world--we could see them re-trained on-the-job in areas required for the future benefit of society (and themselves).

So, yes, I do think a qualifications framework should be devised, and it should be federalised. This would leave the great universities untouched, of course, but would provide emphasis on workplace learning in badly needed areas--and allow industries to shift more readily into them, too.

Finally, it would strengthen labour because workplace qualifications would be standardised and recognised across the board, making workers more mobile--and employers more keen to hold them.

Lester:

As Wade reminds us, governed markets, not free markets, work best. (The "Asian Miracle" and the current U.S. depression help tell us that.)

I'm not sure which Wade you're referring to, but it's some trick for him or her to be able to "remind" us of something that wasn't so in the first place.

The U.S. financial system has been a governed market since 1913, the creation of the mother of all public-private partnerships: the Federal Reserve.  And just as the incompetent monetary policy of the Fed in the '20s along with protectionist tariffs created and prolonged the Great Depression, so too did legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act as revised in the '90s force lenders to increase the number of irresponsible mortgages they approved. 

Now, I'm not going to say that bankers and others in the financial arena didn't make boneheaded choices.  But for you to suggest that the American financial industry is some sort of unregulated wild west is ridiculous.  And now that there has been a crash, the wrong approach has been taken -- bailouts for the rich instead of letting bank failures clean house, and an orgy of federal spending that would make Keynes himself blush.

This is not the model to follow for education.  The feds should stay out of the way so that the American system of higher education can continue to be the envy of the world.

The power of the U.S. government could ensure workers were trained in today's (and tomorrow's) technologies, not yesterday's. The U.S. auto industry, ailing for decades, demonstrates this inclination towards living in the past--as long as it holds together. But when it doesn't--CRASH!

And that's why those auto makers who didn't listen to their customers should be allowed to go bankrupt, so that those that did and are can better take their place. 

Imagine workplace qualifications in areas such as alternative energies, mass transit, knowledge management, etc. Instead of seeing Michigan auto workers lament the demise of a long-lost concept--paying people 20 bob or more per hour to do what costs much less elsewhere in the world--we could see them re-trained on-the-job in areas required for the future benefit of society (and themselves).

"We" could.  Or, if those areas are truly in demand, then companies or trade associations can devise credentials that workers will want to earn, just as happened in the IT industry during the '90s when those skills started to be in demand.  Or, universities can build relevant degree programs.  Or both.  Either way universities and industry will cross-pollinate; there's incentive on both sides and mechanisms like ACE are already in place.

So, yes, I do think a qualifications framework should be devised, and it should be federalised. This would leave the great universities untouched, of course, but would provide emphasis on workplace learning in badly needed areas--and allow industries to shift more readily into them, too.  Finally, it would strengthen labour because workplace qualifications would be standardised and recognised across the board, making workers more mobile--and employers more keen to hold them.

The assumption that underlines your whole plan here is that governments are more efficient than markets.  It may be unfashionable to point it out these days, but there's ample historical evidence that this is not the case.

-=Steve=-

I agree with Steve.  The free markets didn't cause any of this mess!! Government regulations and government intervention did, lets not forget the Federal Reserve's role either, do some research on the subject.

As for federalizing higher education this will only make higher ed out of touch financially for most people, higher ed is already subsidized to the hilt.  I was listening to the radio tonight and the guest was Dr. Richard Vedder, an Ohio State Economics Professor, who speaks of why higher ed is so terribly expensive and why the rate of inflation is the highest of any market/product is higher ed...state subsidies, pell grants, FAFSA...let the free market work...prices will come down and students will get an even better education.

Check out collegeaffordability(dot)net

Lester I think you need to study the history behind your so called “Asian Miracle” arguably led by China and see that in their case the economy whose foundations are in blood and oppression.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

You need to understand that China for example, this wonderful economic success that everyone seems to get so excited about comes at a high cost.  The government is the sole employer, thus controls nearly every facet of the lives of their citizens.  They can move you from being a farmer one day to a miner the next with the stroke of a pen.  Regardless of where your talents lie, regardless of what you want to do as an individual.  This collectivism thinking led to a famine as recently as 1958 to 1960 that killed millions because free market enterprise would fall under governmental centralized control.  This did not improve quality, this did not improve lives but you’re right about one thing, everyone had to march in the same direction, even if it was the wrong one.

The current state of the Chinese economy is due to several factors.  First the Chinese can summon up an almost unmatchable amount of labor and manpower almost instantly, simply because these people will do as they are told to do by the government.  They have empty factories with infrastructure built on the backs of forced labor, they can staff these factories for pennies on the dollar through forced labor, they have clearly defined classes in China and generally we only hear about the affluence of the urbanites, not the subjugation of the rural class. 
If I want to build a trendy shoe factory and my current free market share is only 30% and not likely to get bigger, I can build in the U.S. which has government oversight favorable to the employees with things like Social Security, unemployment insurance, injury and disability benefits, established 40 hour work weeks and overtime laws, minimum wage acts, etc.  I can build a pair of shoes for $45 and sell them at $95 making a $50 profit.  Or I can go overseas to China where there are no such employee protections, sacrifice a little bit of quality maybe and build the same pair of shoes for $6 with shipping included and make a nice $89 per pair sold.
See free market principles only really thrive when the market is actually free.  If there is a bully boy on the block who doesn’t play by the same rules as everyone else, the markets shift favorably to the cheapest cost provider almost always.

The same can be said of our financial markets, using forced home loans for the sake of “equality” and “fairness” which led to bad mortgages only to have them fall through with no collateral because of targeted deregulation.  The government that you think will fix the education system is the very government that put the United States in this mess, not AIG, not Citibank, etc.  It was the government…  People get so caught up on AIG, etc. turning disgusting profits and taking high salaries, etc.  Guess what?  Businesses are designed to make profit, it’s why they exist.  Don’t blame them for following their natural tendency to do so any more than you would blame a dog for eating meat.  It’s ingrained in their nature and you cannot break that nor control it.  Instead the U.S. economy has done almost universally well under looser restrictions and financial incentives driven by demand and innovation, not by coerced or forced social controls and governmental constraints. 

Speak to someone who has actually lived through the Great Depression and realize how naïve your calling what we have now as a depression.  Back then those guys standing in soup lines would have gladly put on a paper hat and done the jobs “no American will do” to get by.
What you’re espousing is Socialism at best which does not have a very successful track record last I checked, even in as utopian as a society as say, oh, Cuba…

Lastly in regard to education, you said yourself the U.S. has the best university and post secondary education system in the world, despite our public school systems seemingly continual shortcomings.  Yet you want government control over them?  Look at your public school system, is that what you want your university system to look like?  Personally I’m not seeing a problem.  If I were to change anything it would be the financial aid programs and perhaps a universal accreditation standard, that’s it.

I encourage you to read some history books, gain some perspective and I'd start with the U.S. Constitution were I you, try and understand the scope of our government, even if we haven't seemed to adhere to it in some time.

Cajun:

I encourage you to read some history books, gain some perspective and I'd start with the U.S. Constitution were I you, try and understand the scope of our government, even if we haven't seemed to adhere to it in some time.

Thank you for the "advice."

"Robert" Wade.

The East Asian "Miracle" is well-documented. One does not have to support the lack of democracy found in those states to appreciate the benefit of governmental control over aspects of the market.

The current U.S. crisis is absolutely due to the lack of oversight in the market. Current events make that very clear.

There are tremendous benefits to managing a qualifications framework. The OECD illustrates this in "Qualifications Systems: Bridges to Lifelong Learning."

I didn't suggest federal control of higher education. Go back and you'll see I specifically suggested otherwise. Instead, I've promoted the idea of a qualifications framework to focus tertiary and workplace learning into areas needed by society, which will lead to economic improvement. Such a qualifications framework can only be brought about by the central government.

Don't condescendingly tell me to read, research, etc., when the very things I'm saying are well-rooted in such. Disagree, sure. Document, if you can. But your tone is unnecessary.

I'm sorry you found my tone so offensive.  You made an argument, I countered it.  Only I used actual historical events to support my position and of course a theoretical example based upon macroeconomic principles grounded in free market or modified free market research.  I've never seen a single successful socialist or modified socialist economy, nor has the world.  The Asian marketplace right now is new, an anomaly and thus people get excited about it.  My assertion is that it is not only unproven but unsustainable.

 An no, deregulation did not cause this mess.  Look deeper, like I said it was a governmental social experiment, combined with deregulation and a healthy dose of greed that "done it".  It was politicos operating outside their area of expertise creating loopholes in the market free of consequence for action, bucking basic economic principles and people exuberantly taking advantage of the situation.  Can you blame them?  The problem is we have a generation so used to throwing money at problems to avoid pain that this is exactly what we're doing now rather than allowing for natural economic forces to clean house and right size the economy.  Even as bad as things are you have to admit this is nowhere nearly as bad as the Great Depression you called it before.

But then I got a little off topic didn't I?

On topic however is the scope of government, or at least centralized government and span of control in higher education.  The federal government in the U.S. should have a unifying standard by which all accrediting agencies must adhere to, the U.S. Department of Education sets that standard and thus far, all is well for the most part.  No nation can match the level of education nor the opportunity to take advantage of said education as that of the U.S.  The system isn't broken, but I'm willing to bet that it can be with too much interference.  Innovation is largely driven by opportunity in the form of wealth or personal or professional growth, status, etc.  It is best to let each school determine what is best for their needs and those of their students within a certain realm of voluntarily adhered standards by which all can agree to, such as an accrediting agency.  A centralized authority dictating the framework by which universities and schools can operate or even more, why they operate would stifle innovation and natural growth, essentially canning the system into a one size fits all container.

Politicians know as much about education as they seem to know about free market economics, causes and consequences, which scares the crud out of me.  Besides, how many public school teachers do you think are enthusiastic about the feds controlling quality standards for federal dollars at the K-12 level, ie the “no child left behind act”?  I know a lot of teachers and have yet to find one.

As for government controlled corporate training?  I get chills just thinking about it.