Asia ranks top in international education rankings, comparing standards in maths and science

[21stCentury]

well, no japanese empire, you self claim, but the fact is you were vassal of china as kindom of wo, (dwarf), dont make up lies.
also chinese qin dynasty general xu fu and his army reached japan and ruled locals before you japanese were even evovled from monkey level.
also, mongol army are made up with mostly chinese, and some koreans, you japanese never defeated any of them , it was typhoon sunk their ships, or your japan would be part of mongols even today, LOL
also yuan only lasted like 50 years, mongols are slave of china for more than 1000 years, even today most mongols are under chinese ruling, hahah

You need to control yourself and please be civil here.

 

[jackmars]

It does make sense to know when Asian could turn good score into real performance. Effectiveness.
Westerners results aren't good in mass for several decades. But they still control the science, technology, entertainment, music, sport... nearly everything.

Their classrooms are just like a playground, but their creativeness is still better than study like crazy in Asia.

still wrong, the most science or tech in west are contributed by jews ,not whites, also take america as example, the most scientist in america are jews, chinese and indians, there are more than 200 chinese members of national academy of science of america, where most top american scientists enrolled for , the fact is white are actually relying on jews and asian scientist for technology and invention

 

[21stCentury]

well, only thing you japanese focus is copying, your country is world largest copycat country, in ancient time, you copied from china, after 19th century, you copy from west

Nothing wrong with copying if the final result is you learning and acquiring the skills yourself and then being able to innovative and improve upon it. Japan have done well in this regard. China also has done the same. In fact, this is a common sense practice.

 

[jackmars]

You need to control yourself and please be civil here.

im very civil , dont judge people from your illusion

 

[Aepsilons]

One comment as an engineer. The white man lab is more meritocratic while Asian lab are full of favoritism. That impedes technical advancement.

In white man lab, I can voice out opinion and provide diversity. In Asia, such people are deem as trouble maker, who like to make boss look stupid.

A lot of politicking in Asia as boss like to pit A against B. There are internal exhaustion.

It is widely believed that a commitment to education is a key element in the “miracle” economic growth experienced in much of East Asia over the past several decades. For example, the introduction of universal primary schooling in Japan is presumed to have led to a relatively high level of education and literacy among the general population in the 1960s. By implication, skill levels and thus productivity of the labor force were generally higher than in other developing countries. These higher education levels also facilitated the transfer and adoption of foreign-sourced technology and made it easier to find competent staff for the civil service. Relatively high education levels may have also helped lower fertility and mortality rates below what they were in other developing countries with similar levels of income.

Unfortunately, a variety of flaws have begun to appear in the highly regimented education systems of East Asia with their demand for conformity. In particular, the stresses of competition in Japan have led to some troubling acts of student violence and suicide. A more widespread problem is the inhibition of creativity. That may be the weak link in the region’s ability to sustain its economic progress.

The problems do not end with primary and secondary education. A lockstep tendency among many East Asian academics leads to questions about the integrity of some of the region’s universities. Asian universities function too often as factories for the production of state bureaucrats.

Traditional institutional arrangements in Asia inhibit original research. Intellectual debate is neither necessary nor appreciated among herds of students who are being trained to follow rules and to adhere unquestioningly to authority. Even though many Asians hold education in high regard, most schooling is based on rote learning. Former Japanese Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa suggested that this system would ruin his country’s future.

The accompanying hierarchical structures inhibit freethinking and challenges to conventional wisdom that generate new ideas. As a result, technological innovations that have emerged from East Asia are in narrowly focused areas with limited applications. There’s been little basic research in, say, genetic engineering or biotechnology.

Students from the region continue to flock to the West, which continues to have the greatest centers of higher learning, thanks to its tradition of intellectual freedom. Unsurprisingly, they attract and produce the bulk of the world’s great scholars and innovators.

The Singapore Example
It is difficult to generalize about the East Asian educational systems. However, a case study of Singapore might reveal some interesting points of similarity.

Despite its reputation as one of the premier institutions of higher education in that region, there is little room for academic freedom at the National University of Singapore (NUS). Reflecting the mood of the country’s political leadership, the NUS is a humorless place run by rule-bound administrators who treat lecturers more like bureaucrats than scholars. This bureaucratization of the academy became amply clear to me during my time there.

Having served as a senior fellow at NUS, I am often asked about the quality of the staff and students. My general response is that none of my high and positive expectations were realized. In my academic career I have measured the quality of my students and colleagues by their ability to provide penetrating insights, to offer challenges to existing intellectual frameworks, to think laterally, and so on. In turn, I always expected them to demand the same from me. Most students at the NUS suffered from an emphasis on rote learning almost to the complete exclusion of the creative use of what had been learned. There was a great gap between scholastic achievement and personal maturity. This was evident in the giggling, wide-eyed naïveté and parochialism that led to the most frequent question, “Please, sir, what is the right answer?”

Alas, many of my Singaporean colleagues in the Faculty of the Arts and Social Sciences were also intimidated into lockstep mediocrity by the power structure both in the university and in the government. These observations are less a criticism of the individuals involved than they are of the incentive system under which they operated. Most of my students and colleagues were certainly comparable in their intellectual capacities with those encountered in any other university in the world. Doubtless, many were exceptional. It was well understood, however, that those who did not cooperate would be passed over for promotions or might lose their jobs. The university administration chose a technique that I refer to as “management by fear.”

Similarly, the students tended to toe the line in anticipation of being offered a plum job in what is one of the highest-paying civil service systems in the world. It was a common understanding, I was surprised to discover, that there were informers in each class who reported to the administration on the behavior of students and lecturers. Thus students who were too outspoken might find themselves deprived of the largess associated with working in the well-paid technocracy, and faculty members might find their chances for promotion greatly reduced. As one of my expatriate colleagues remarked, the NUS was “an incubator for another batch of baby mandarins.”

The quest for knowledge is generally subverted by political considerations. Many full professors in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences had direct links with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) either as members of Parliament or in some other capacity. My own department head had a plaque placed prominently on his desk with the motto: “An ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of ability.”

Little wonder that during the recent pause in the pace of economic activity, the government began to ponder the dearth of creative thinking in confronting the challenges of the global economy. It has now embarked on the classic statist technique of throwing money at a problem’s symptoms rather than its causes. An expensive project is under way to “create creativity” without initiating fundamental changes in the rigid educational system. Obviously, they just don’t get it!

Entrepreneurs and Progress
In April 1997 a survey conducted by the China University of Political Science and Law indicated that the content as well as the teaching methods of China’s secondary and higher education were out of date and in “conflict with the cultivation of creativity.” The study surveyed 2,000 students from ten institutes of higher education and ten high schools. More than half of the student participants complained of outdated textbooks, test-oriented teaching methods, and irrational knowledge structure.

Educational systems that encourage a submersion of the individual in a collective (such as the Confucionist-inspired notions of “society above self” and unquestioning acceptance of authority) will unavoidably inhibit the emergence of indigenous entrepreneurs. These individuals are a key ingredient for sustained economic progress through creative and independent thinking. By definition, their search for profit opportunities requires that they constantly take risks and undertake challenges to the economic order and, if need be, to the political status quo. In contrast, people who choose to be political cronies are unlikely to be risk takers. Attempts by authoritarian regimes to institutionalize the free-enterprise process by appointing party faithful cannot succeed, because the attributes of entrepreneurship involve more than programmed trading. Being truly freethinkers, entrepreneurs will always constitute a potential threat to the political establishment.

However, attempts to suppress or co-opt entrepreneurs may lead to a ruinous brain drain. In attempting to control entrepreneurs, authoritarian regimes are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Perhaps the most damaging result of government policies that restrain freethinking is the glaring absence of innovative design and technological research in much of Asia. While it is true that some of the Tigers have begun to export technology to neighboring countries and have registered an increased number of patents, much of this activity reflects the efforts of multinational corporations that operate in the region.

In East Asia, foreigners have been patenting inventions at a faster pace than have Asian residents. For example, in 1990 foreign inventors in Singapore and Hong Kong were awarded 99 and 98 percent, respectively, of all patents issued. Accounting for 95 percent of Asia’s U.S. patents, Japan is the only East Asian country that has kept pace with Western industrialized countries, although a large proportion were for home electronics.

The tendency of most East Asian educational systems to reinforce the aversion to conflict and to work toward “consensus building” has the unintended consequence of strengthening staid hierarchical structures by limiting open debate. In the absence of any counterweight to the strict adherence to hierarchical decisions of politicians or managers, short-run gains from building consensus may be offset by related long-run costs arising from corruption, social injustice, or economic inefficiency.

It is ironic that as Western educators look with envy at the results of Asian schooling, Asian educators seek to emulate the Western approach to learn how to make their students more creative. The solution to this educational puzzle is likely to have enormous economic impact on the future. However, one thing can be said with some certainty: Widely shared prosperity will arise under arrangements that encourage creativity and thus entrepreneurship.



Reference:
Education, Creativity, and Prosperity: East versus West : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Nothing wrong with copying if the final result is you learning and acquiring the skills yourself and then being able to innovative and improve upon it. Japan have done well in this regard. China also has done the same. In fact, this is a common sense practice.

May your tribe increase. We need more Chinese posters like you, with broad mind.

Ganbei !

Widely shared prosperity will arise under arrangements that encourage creativity and thus entrepreneurship.

 

[jackmars]

Nothing wrong with copying if the final result is you learning and acquiring the skills yourself and then being able to innovative and improve upon it. Japan have done well in this regard. China also has done the same. In fact, this is a common sense practice.

when did i say it is wrong, huh? you are delusional, what im saying is japanese lacks creativity so they are best at copycat, yeah, china or every country in world copied from others, but none of them reach level of japan in copying almost everything.
, japan, korea, vietnam are equally top 3 world copycat countries

 

[21stCentury]

when did i say it is wrong, huh? you are delusional, what im saying is japanese lacks creativity so they are best at copycat, yeah, china or every country in world copied from others, but none of them reach level of japan in copying almost everything.
, japan, korea, vietnam are equally top 3 world copycat countries

Remember that China for the most part of history is regarded as the center of power and was at the forefront of culture, sciences, and technology. Of course others would want to emulate us.. but why are you bashing them?

 

[Lux de Veritas]

when did i say it is wrong, huh? you are delusional, what im saying is japanese lacks creativity so they are best at copycat, yeah, china or every country in world copied from others, but none of them reach level of japan in copying almost everything.
, japan, korea, vietnam are equally top 3 world copycat countries

It is widely believed that a commitment to education is a key element in the “miracle” economic growth experienced in much of East Asia over the past several decades. For example, the introduction of universal primary schooling in Japan is presumed to have led to a relatively high level of education and literacy among the general population in the 1960s. By implication, skill levels and thus productivity of the labor force were generally higher than in other developing countries. These higher education levels also facilitated the transfer and adoption of foreign-sourced technology and made it easier to find competent staff for the civil service. Relatively high education levels may have also helped lower fertility and mortality rates below what they were in other developing countries with similar levels of income.

Unfortunately, a variety of flaws have begun to appear in the highly regimented education systems of East Asia with their demand for conformity. In particular, the stresses of competition in Japan have led to some troubling acts of student violence and suicide. A more widespread problem is the inhibition of creativity. That may be the weak link in the region’s ability to sustain its economic progress.

The problems do not end with primary and secondary education. A lockstep tendency among many East Asian academics leads to questions about the integrity of some of the region’s universities. Asian universities function too often as factories for the production of state bureaucrats.

Traditional institutional arrangements in Asia inhibit original research. Intellectual debate is neither necessary nor appreciated among herds of students who are being trained to follow rules and to adhere unquestioningly to authority. Even though many Asians hold education in high regard, most schooling is based on rote learning. Former Japanese Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa suggested that this system would ruin his country’s future.

The accompanying hierarchical structures inhibit freethinking and challenges to conventional wisdom that generate new ideas. As a result, technological innovations that have emerged from East Asia are in narrowly focused areas with limited applications. There’s been little basic research in, say, genetic engineering or biotechnology.

Students from the region continue to flock to the West, which continues to have the greatest centers of higher learning, thanks to its tradition of intellectual freedom. Unsurprisingly, they attract and produce the bulk of the world’s great scholars and innovators.

The Singapore Example
It is difficult to generalize about the East Asian educational systems. However, a case study of Singapore might reveal some interesting points of similarity.

Despite its reputation as one of the premier institutions of higher education in that region, there is little room for academic freedom at the National University of Singapore (NUS). Reflecting the mood of the country’s political leadership, the NUS is a humorless place run by rule-bound administrators who treat lecturers more like bureaucrats than scholars. This bureaucratization of the academy became amply clear to me during my time there.

Having served as a senior fellow at NUS, I am often asked about the quality of the staff and students. My general response is that none of my high and positive expectations were realized. In my academic career I have measured the quality of my students and colleagues by their ability to provide penetrating insights, to offer challenges to existing intellectual frameworks, to think laterally, and so on. In turn, I always expected them to demand the same from me. Most students at the NUS suffered from an emphasis on rote learning almost to the complete exclusion of the creative use of what had been learned. There was a great gap between scholastic achievement and personal maturity. This was evident in the giggling, wide-eyed naïveté and parochialism that led to the most frequent question, “Please, sir, what is the right answer?”

Alas, many of my Singaporean colleagues in the Faculty of the Arts and Social Sciences were also intimidated into lockstep mediocrity by the power structure both in the university and in the government. These observations are less a criticism of the individuals involved than they are of the incentive system under which they operated. Most of my students and colleagues were certainly comparable in their intellectual capacities with those encountered in any other university in the world. Doubtless, many were exceptional. It was well understood, however, that those who did not cooperate would be passed over for promotions or might lose their jobs. The university administration chose a technique that I refer to as “management by fear.”

Similarly, the students tended to toe the line in anticipation of being offered a plum job in what is one of the highest-paying civil service systems in the world. It was a common understanding, I was surprised to discover, that there were informers in each class who reported to the administration on the behavior of students and lecturers. Thus students who were too outspoken might find themselves deprived of the largess associated with working in the well-paid technocracy, and faculty members might find their chances for promotion greatly reduced. As one of my expatriate colleagues remarked, the NUS was “an incubator for another batch of baby mandarins.”

The quest for knowledge is generally subverted by political considerations. Many full professors in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences had direct links with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) either as members of Parliament or in some other capacity. My own department head had a plaque placed prominently on his desk with the motto: “An ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of ability.”

Little wonder that during the recent pause in the pace of economic activity, the government began to ponder the dearth of creative thinking in confronting the challenges of the global economy. It has now embarked on the classic statist technique of throwing money at a problem’s symptoms rather than its causes. An expensive project is under way to “create creativity” without initiating fundamental changes in the rigid educational system. Obviously, they just don’t get it!

Entrepreneurs and Progress
In April 1997 a survey conducted by the China University of Political Science and Law indicated that the content as well as the teaching methods of China’s secondary and higher education were out of date and in “conflict with the cultivation of creativity.” The study surveyed 2,000 students from ten institutes of higher education and ten high schools. More than half of the student participants complained of outdated textbooks, test-oriented teaching methods, and irrational knowledge structure.

Educational systems that encourage a submersion of the individual in a collective (such as the Confucionist-inspired notions of “society above self” and unquestioning acceptance of authority) will unavoidably inhibit the emergence of indigenous entrepreneurs. These individuals are a key ingredient for sustained economic progress through creative and independent thinking. By definition, their search for profit opportunities requires that they constantly take risks and undertake challenges to the economic order and, if need be, to the political status quo. In contrast, people who choose to be political cronies are unlikely to be risk takers. Attempts by authoritarian regimes to institutionalize the free-enterprise process by appointing party faithful cannot succeed, because the attributes of entrepreneurship involve more than programmed trading. Being truly freethinkers, entrepreneurs will always constitute a potential threat to the political establishment.

However, attempts to suppress or co-opt entrepreneurs may lead to a ruinous brain drain. In attempting to control entrepreneurs, authoritarian regimes are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Perhaps the most damaging result of government policies that restrain freethinking is the glaring absence of innovative design and technological research in much of Asia. While it is true that some of the Tigers have begun to export technology to neighboring countries and have registered an increased number of patents, much of this activity reflects the efforts of multinational corporations that operate in the region.

In East Asia, foreigners have been patenting inventions at a faster pace than have Asian residents. For example, in 1990 foreign inventors in Singapore and Hong Kong were awarded 99 and 98 percent, respectively, of all patents issued. Accounting for 95 percent of Asia’s U.S. patents, Japan is the only East Asian country that has kept pace with Western industrialized countries, although a large proportion were for home electronics.

The tendency of most East Asian educational systems to reinforce the aversion to conflict and to work toward “consensus building” has the unintended consequence of strengthening staid hierarchical structures by limiting open debate. In the absence of any counterweight to the strict adherence to hierarchical decisions of politicians or managers, short-run gains from building consensus may be offset by related long-run costs arising from corruption, social injustice, or economic inefficiency.

It is ironic that as Western educators look with envy at the results of Asian schooling, Asian educators seek to emulate the Western approach to learn how to make their students more creative. The solution to this educational puzzle is likely to have enormous economic impact on the future. However, one thing can be said with some certainty: Widely shared prosperity will arise under arrangements that encourage creativity and thus entrepreneurship.



Reference:
Education, Creativity, and Prosperity: East versus West : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education




May your tribe increase. We need more Chinese posters like you, with broad mind.

Ganbei !

All East Asian got mentally wounded and brain damage since childhood to their entire adult life as long as they stay in East Asia. The Asian IQ is a big flat middle in the Bell curve.

The white man appears to have very big Bell curve tail. They have more big big genius with a population of many who are not so clever.

The East Asian society is more orderly but stiffling. The white man is more chaotic. Go to any white man land first thing you see is vandalism.

 

[21stCentury]

May your tribe increase. We need more Chinese posters like you, with broad mind.

Ganbei !

Right back at ya. I try to be objective and keep a cool head.

Your posts are very objective as well, I like that.

Cheers!

 

[jackmars]

Remember that China for the most part of history is regarded as the center of power and was at the forefront of culture, sciences, and technology. Of course others would want to emulate us.. but why are you bashing them?

no, that does not even make sense, china has so many neighboring countries in most time of history, why only japan ,korea, vietnam copied everything from china, huh? greece or many countries like india was also centers of civilization, why china or other did not copy from them? its very simple ,japanese lack ability to create, so they have to copy, if they did not copy from china, they would copy from turkic, or mongols, or others

 

[Aepsilons]

All East Asian got mentally wounded and brain damage since childhood to their entire adult life as long as they stay in East Asia. The Asian IQ is a big flat middle in the Bell curve.

The white man appears to have very big Bell curve tail. They have more big big genius with a population of many who are not so clever.

The East Asian society is more orderly but stiffling. The white man is more chaotic. Go to any white man land first thing you see is vandalism.

The etiology is the culture. East Asian culture demands order, obedience, loyalty. Remember, disloyalty is equivalent to loss of face, which is worst than death. In Europe, there is no 'collectivistic' thinking, theirs is more so focused on individualistic thinking, autonomy, self governance. Remember their Enlightenment culture during the late 17th century, 18th century? Voltaire defines this said culture when he said, " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

Such a concept was alien in Imperial Japan, Imperial China. To utter rebellion or dissension was paramount to death.

Right back at ya. I try to be objective and keep a cool head.

Your posts are very objective as well, I like that.

Cheers!

he he he, naturally i have a fondness for China as i have relatives in Guangzhou (my uncle married a Chinese wife, and he and family live there).

Btw, where in the 'states are you at?

The East Asian society is more orderly but stiffling. The white man is more chaotic. Go to any white man land first thing you see is vandalism.

lol, i never thought of that till you mentioned it.

That and gum all over the streets. lol.

 

[21stCentury]

no, that does not even make sense, china has so many neighboring countries in most time of history, why only japan ,korea, vietnam copied everything from china, huh? greece or many countries like india was also centers of civilization, why china or other did not copy from them? its very simple ,japanese lack ability to create, so they have to copy, if they did not copy from china, they would copy from turkic, or mongols, or others

Like I said, China was regarded as the center of power. It had the dominating culture and everything. And also, China was the first civilization of East Asia. It was the leader and surrounding states like Korea, Vietnam, and Japan among others were part of the Sinosphere with China at the very center radiating out.

Why would they emulate Mongols or Turks? Why would they want to be nomads and sheep herders when they can build a great civilization and culture like China?

 

[jackmars]

Like I said, China was regarded as the center of power. It had the dominating culture and everything. And also, China was the first civilization of East Asia. It was the leader and surrounding states like Korea, Vietnam, and Japan among others were part of the Sinosphere with China at the very center radiating out.

Why would they emulate Mongols or Turks? Why would they want to be nomads and sheep herders when they can build a great civilization and culture like China?

you dont have to repeat your useless nonsense, i said it already, china has so many neibours , why only japan or korea of vietnam copied almost everything ,huh? why did not turks, mongols, laos, thais , Tibetans ,uyghurs ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, all others copied everything from china since china was first and most advanced in east part of asia, huh? why only they three, huh? i said it, very simple, all others have their own culture, while japan, korea, or vietnam did not have, so they copy from whoever, if not from china, would be copying from others, its all about ability rather than who is their neighbours

 

[Lux de Veritas]

China being a big unitary state for more than 2000 years, relies on huge centripetal control. That is to say China need to suppress dissent and chaos, or the state will break apart.

China creativity died after Warring State since Qin Dynasty. It briefly burst up in ROC era, an era of chaos. With PRC and a strong government, no way Chinese will have creativity.

The white man pay a price for their human rights and creativity. The white man land, Europe was broken up into thousands of princely states. The chaos provide creativity.

I think future of USA is either a fascist state if she want to remain unitary, or she breaks up if she want creativity.

 

[21stCentury]

you dont have to repeat your useless nonsense, i said it already, china has so many neibours , why only japan or korea of vietnam copied almost everything ,huh? why did not turks, mongols, laos, thais , Tibetans ,uyghurs ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, all others copied everything from china since china was first and most advanced in east part of asia, huh? why only they three, huh? i said it, very simple, all others have their own culture, while japan, korea, or vietnam did not have, so they copy from whoever, if not from china, would be copying from others, its all about ability rather than who is their neighbours

Simply because those 3 you mention were very very close to China. Just like one big family.