More likely, you prefer not to pay because it costs way more than it should.
Americans earn 30% more than Finlanders adjusting for PPP. I.e., taking into account higher cost of health care, lower cost of most other things, we still have 30% more on average.
Americans do pay more for education than Europeans, but our results are quite good compared to most of Europe. The only reason it appears our educational system is poor is because certain subgroups of the student body drag our averages down.
>> The only reason it appears our education system is poor is because certain subgroups of the student body drags [sic] our averages down.
Yeah, lots of people forget how great we really are once you compare our best to everybody else's average! It's pure bias. Individually (booyah!) almost every one of us is well above average. It's just that there are too many of the others who don't deserve to count.
Perhaps American's would be even more educated if they used a system like Finland's, often held up as the worlds best education system. Paying less and getting better results sounds good to me. Maybe Finland's high educational achievement level starts with the picture book in the box?
Some parts of Germany now rank as well as the Finnish average in the PISA tests. (And Singapore ranks pretty well, too, but that was not a result of an effort spurred on by the testing.)
> Americans earn 30% more than Finlanders adjusting for PPP.
You're taking PPP to mean much more than it actually does. Just consider the fact that there's no accepted "PPP" measurement methodology.
But even assuming one existed (pick your favorite), it only effectively encodes one specific consumption profile - one that e.g. takes into account the health care costs of a 30-year-olds with healthy 4-year-old kids, but not that of your average 50-year-old which are considerably different.
> taking into account higher cost of health care, lower cost of most other things, we still have 30% more on average.
Averages are totally the wrong tool to measure anything like that - especially when disparity in the US is so much higher.
Compare the proverbial USElbonia to Eulbonia:
In USElbonia, 1% make $16100/month, 99% make $100/month' avg=$260/month
In EUlbonia, 1% makes $400/month, 99% make $200/month, avg=$202/month
USElbonians, make, on the overage 30% more - but every single EUlbonian is at least 100% better off than 99% of the USElbonians.
Real stats are not quite as bad, of course - but disparity in the US is ridiculously high. But there are many respects in which all EU people are better off than US people which do not make it into any PPP comparison -- e.g., http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bill... "Unless you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, you are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy" - I can't find a real European comparable, but http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2009/11/17/no_one_goes_ban/ suggests that there's more the quality than 30% parity-adjusted purchasing power can buy.
> The only reason it appears our educational system is poor is because certain subgroups of the student body drag our averages down.
Cherry picking statistics will get you anywhere you want, regardless of any "truth" however that may be defined.
Consistently in STEM, about 50% of PhD and postdoctoral students in the US are not USA citizens, and this has been going on for at least 20 years. I would take that as empirical evidence that the US STEM education is, indeed, poor.
Americans earn 30% more than Finlanders adjusting for PPP. I.e., taking into account higher cost of health care, lower cost of most other things, we still have 30% more on average.
Americans do pay more for education than Europeans, but our results are quite good compared to most of Europe. The only reason it appears our educational system is poor is because certain subgroups of the student body drag our averages down.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-abou...