Thursday, April 22, 2004
Fisking Friedman
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Losing Our Edge?
I'm not going to dissect all of his points, some of which may be valid (although that is impossible to tell because Mr. Friedman's article is too short and lacks any proof beyond vague innuendo); one jumps out at me, however.
He writes about a science competition that Intel holds every year:
The 50,000 American children most likely participated because of their own personal motivation and vigor, most of the Chinese students were likely forced by the government to participate.
The question that needs to be asked is whether the state forcing students to study certain subjects if a good idea? Does it really help a country become more competitive if a bunch of less-than-enthusiastic students consume educational capital learning, and then don't pursue research with a real passion?
It could, maybe volume is better than quality. But then, there's a large and probably chance that it doesn't.
Also, it should be pointed out that our country is still skimming many of the best from the world because of how much better our university system is than any other country (The Economist has written on this frequently. Even Oxford and Cambridge are losing their luster). I can also testify to this personally; here at the University of Chicago there are many international students or the children of immigrants that are fully americanized and plan on staying here in the US.
It should finally be pointed out, while remaining brief (I have to read Tocqueville's take on the Ancien Regime for tomorrow before I rest), that there is more to a nation and a society than technical prowess. While it may be important, there are several other factors that indicate a country's general health. There are its artistic productions; the US seems to have quite a global reach in its productions, and despite the criticism that Hollywood may receive, there are many excellent works of art that are not mainstream being produced in the US all the time. Also, there are other academic subjects that are essential besides the sciences; without a liberal understanding of history and politics, how can a society understand itself as well as attempt to better itself.
Also, to state the obvious that Mr. Friedman doesn't consider the illiberal and repressive government of China and in some cases India. Can a repressive regime really push its citizens to succeed economically in the long run while it denies them fundamental political rights? How long will a people tolerate being nothing more than the means for their government to make a bid for hegemony?
I'm not going to dissect all of his points, some of which may be valid (although that is impossible to tell because Mr. Friedman's article is too short and lacks any proof beyond vague innuendo); one jumps out at me, however.
He writes about a science competition that Intel holds every year:
Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, noted that Intel sponsors an international science competition every year. This year it attracted some 50,000 American high school kids. "I was in China 10 days ago," Mr. Barrett said, "and I asked them how many kids in China participated in the local science fairs that feed into the national fair [and ultimately the Intel finals]. They told me six million kids."
The 50,000 American children most likely participated because of their own personal motivation and vigor, most of the Chinese students were likely forced by the government to participate.
The question that needs to be asked is whether the state forcing students to study certain subjects if a good idea? Does it really help a country become more competitive if a bunch of less-than-enthusiastic students consume educational capital learning, and then don't pursue research with a real passion?
It could, maybe volume is better than quality. But then, there's a large and probably chance that it doesn't.
Also, it should be pointed out that our country is still skimming many of the best from the world because of how much better our university system is than any other country (The Economist has written on this frequently. Even Oxford and Cambridge are losing their luster). I can also testify to this personally; here at the University of Chicago there are many international students or the children of immigrants that are fully americanized and plan on staying here in the US.
It should finally be pointed out, while remaining brief (I have to read Tocqueville's take on the Ancien Regime for tomorrow before I rest), that there is more to a nation and a society than technical prowess. While it may be important, there are several other factors that indicate a country's general health. There are its artistic productions; the US seems to have quite a global reach in its productions, and despite the criticism that Hollywood may receive, there are many excellent works of art that are not mainstream being produced in the US all the time. Also, there are other academic subjects that are essential besides the sciences; without a liberal understanding of history and politics, how can a society understand itself as well as attempt to better itself.
Also, to state the obvious that Mr. Friedman doesn't consider the illiberal and repressive government of China and in some cases India. Can a repressive regime really push its citizens to succeed economically in the long run while it denies them fundamental political rights? How long will a people tolerate being nothing more than the means for their government to make a bid for hegemony?
Comments:
Post a Comment
