Education Levels by Country

[ShadowHM]

I noted a smug article in one of our national newspapers this morning.

It trumpeted the good news that Canadians are well-educated. Now education is a topic near and dear to the heart of any parent nowadays. It certainly is for me.

But, I am finding this 'good news' not as exciting as I might. I have some questions about it, and I thought, based on the international membership here, that there could be some light shed on it.

1) Just how good is a 'basic' education elsewhere, compared to here? I have seen our system get considerably diluted over the years. A high-school diploma is no real guarantee of any level of literacy, nor of any level of critical thinking. Here in Ontario, passing a 'literacy test' has been imposed only last year as a criteria for that diploma, and that test is not a particularly high hurdle. My learning disabled child managed to pass it with ease.

2) What exactly does a college education mean elsewhere? It doesn't mean a whole lot in some cases here.

3) What drives these numbers anyway? In Canada, an economic recession at the beginning of the '90's kept a lot of students in school, merely because there were no jobs to be had at all. I am not sure it could be said that the courses taken were the types to make for a 'good education' as opposed to putting in time until the job market rebounded.

I am sure there are more questions about the data that I have yet to consider.

Do the Lurkers have any thoughts to add or light to shed here?



These were the base statistics offered:

Education standings
Canada has the most educated population of all the member-countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to statistics in 2000.

College or


Rank Country university


1. Canada 41%


2. United States 37


3. Ireland 36


4. Japan 34


5. Finland 32


5. Sweden 32


7. Australia 29


7. New Zealand 29


7. Norway 29


10. Belgium 27

Edit: the full article can be found here....
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/Article...CN/National/Idx

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Attendance doesn't reflect the subject matter, or the levels of "absorption". The Stats are empty, I'm afraid.

What a Japanese student knows by Grade 6 (or equivalent) is staggering by North American/Euro standards.

[Occhidiangela]

But I will ask, based on the provided 10 country list, how each country's system adjudicates or determines what University a child can get into, or even if the child is eligible. And more importantly, what is the base line entry capability, either assumed or demanded?

Japan, for example, has a very competitive entry regimen as compared to the university entry process in my country. As the cost of a typical 4+ year degree program continues to rise, I suspect that the rarity of a college education will increase, and perhaps with that, its relative value and or quality. Trouble is, being wealthy enough to afford the education may soil that simplistic model of rarity contributing to value, or perceived value. There are so many factors that go into the value of the education, including the effort put in by the students themselves, that makes me wonder what measures are considered valid for measuring the output to determine relative quality.

Is that chart an 'apples to apples' comparison?

Many colleges in America, particularly small colleges, have the problem of "student retention." The bail out rate freshman year can vary from 10 to 40+ per cent. Deans in a number of colleges are addressing the problem of how to mentor first year students, how to help them get over the culture shock of having to "do their own work" and how to handle the challenging load. Given the energy that goes into the entry process, there either needs to be an improvement in the predictive model, or a more concerted effort to reach the new students so that they don't feel they have to climb the mountain all by themselves, so that they have credible guidance available.

And on a related note:

Has anyone here read The Worm In The Apple, a book written about the relationship to the teachers' unions to school boards, and educator compensation. Is it an objective analysis, or does it have what I suspect is an anti union slant? I only got to see a snippet of the Cspan 2 presentation by the author, however, the subject interests me.

Governor Perry is driving a hard line on State spending here in Texas, which means that we citizens are very worried how that is going to influence the resources devoted to public education. Of course, in response, our local school district, one of 7 serving the city, just hired six new administrators . . . which given the austere climate, is drawing a great deal of fire from both the teaching professionals and the public in general. More overhead?

Attracting teachers here is tough. Starting salary in our District is $30,000, a tenured teacher with a Masters Degree might get $ 47,000. You have to love the job to do it here.

[--Pete]

. . . depends on the length of your yardstick

Hi,

There was a test that was available at least to the US military that tested the grade level equivalence of one's knowledge. The test was in multiple parts, each with a fairly long time allotment. It was strictly "fact based", with no aptitude portion. If I'm vague, it is because all this is from my memories from '65.

Anyway, I had some free time and I took that test. My background, then, was one incomplete quarter at GA Tech. The result of the test was second year master's student. I'd say the yardstick for educational levels was pretty short even back then.

The need for a bar exam and for board certification is driven by the inconsistency in the level of education among different institutions. Thus, the professional societies or the lawmakers try to ensure that there is at least some minimum level of common competence. Most states have a professional engineer (PE) exam that is required before one can sign off on engineering projects. Again, the same thing.

Even if one completely eliminates the out and out frauds ("Get your college degree for only $1500 online"), there is still the problem of all the trade schools that are giving a degree for what is basically job training. And there is the problem that, at most universities, it is possible to get a degree with little work past what should be required for a high school diploma.

Partially the fault lies with the funding methods. As long as the funding for most schools is based on the number of students rather than the quality of graduates, the situation will continue to get worse. Partially the problem lies with the lack of universal (and rigorous) standards. I still remember my outrage when I heard reported on the radio that some huge percentage of the Chicago high school graduating class could only read at the 8th grade level. My reply, "Then how the **** did they ever get into 9th grade!"

So, the number of people sporting a college degree has, as far as I'm concerned, only one effect -- it makes the college degree join the high school diploma in the dustbin of useless documents.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Attracting teachers here is tough.  Starting salary in our District is $30,000, a tenured teacher with a Masters Degree might get $ 47,000.  You  have to love the job to do it here.

According to the AFL, listed here:
http://www.aft.org/research/survey01/table...s/tableI-1.html

The American school boards are offering fairly low wages for the job, and it is worse here. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (the main source for teaching degrees here) has this to say:

http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~gpieters/gosouth.html


What worries me more than anything is the 'other factors' -

"In Ontario, teachers are facing increased teacher workloads, belittling paper tests, reduced professional support services, and impoverished resources, which all serve to exacerbate the growing wage disparities between here and the U.S."

In my years of involvement with the school system (the eldest of my four sons is 17 now) I have seen a growing case of dispiritedness among teachers. There have been bad teachers, indifferent teachers and stellar teachers. In general, they have been good to great, with the few bad apples really standing out by contrast. But the level of 'other' BS they have to deal with as well as teaching is starting to show.

We have just come through a period where our provincial government has 're-organized' the education system. Ostensibly they were doing this for two reasons: cost cutting and improvement. Budgets have been slashed immensely, and standards have been re-arranged. I do see some light at the end of the tunnel on the standards side, but I find it hard to be optimistic about it when I see the effects of the budget slashing on the other side. Interestingly, the budget they have just set for my school board includes (with no negotiation) a wage decrease for all teachers (i.e. below current contract levels). We are in for a rough ride, I fear.

[--Pete]

Hi,

When I went back to school in '68, I ran across a number of K-12 teachers that were going back to school to get out of the classroom. While a few complained about salary, most did not. Their complaints were, basically, that a teacher was no longer able to do what they wanted to do most, namely teach. I don't think that has changed much in the years since.

Two things, more or less unrelated. Looking strictly at teacher's yearly salaries gives a false impression. Even allowing for the time it takes to prepare for teaching and for grading and correcting, the number of hours a typical teacher works per week is about the same as any other professional (55 to 60). The difference is in the number of weeks worked per year. In most states, the school year is 180 days, or 36 weeks. That gives most teachers a 38 week work year. One needs to increase teacher's salaries by about 35% to get a fair comparison. And, yes, teachers often have to take courses on their time and at their expense. So what? I've yet to meet a K-12 teacher who has put in ten years of post secondary education that most of the scientists and many of the engineers I've know have put in. And yet, most of them have had to spend years as post docs and average, over their lifetime, less than do teachers with much worse benefits. The salary issue is a red herring, IMO.

Second, I'm looking for some world data on how much countries are spending on education. Per student would be nice. And as a fraction of the average wage would be nice, too. Also of interest is the fraction of the educational dollar spent on teaching as opposed to building nicer buildings, playing fields, etc. I saw some data not too many years ago that showed that the US and Canada were amongst the highest spenders on education per student, yet neither showed much success in educating their populations. And that they had the highest percentage "overhead" in education.

I think that all these other issues are at least as important as what a teacher gets paid.

--Pete

[Skandranon]

"Low" compared to what?

The last study I checked ranked Ontario teachers as the third highest paid in the world, behind two different cantons of Switzerland.

Granted, that study was in 1998. And of course I'd like to see updated numbers, but the situation certainly can't be as bad as OISE is suggesting it is. I know doctors and lawyers who would love to make what teachers do. I think that OISE's document is pure propaganda (not that Ontario teachers haven't had experience fooling the public, of course not).

From a non-teaching perspective, I find it hard to explain the teachers' repeated gripes. They strike every two years (ostensibly "for the students", though it's clear as to how their education is suffering). They whine about reduced preparation time (other professionals don't get any - they use personal time, meaning they get almost no spare time of their own). They cry about having to administer standardized testing (which is the only way to stop the illiterate high-school graduates we've had in the past). All the while, getting three months of virtual holiday a year.

It looks a lot like they don't want to work too hard and resent the government trying to make them.

I am not saying that it's the case. But it looks like it.

The teachers' union likes to blame lower student scores on the current government. They like to point fingers at the budget cuts and say, "We told you so." But the fact is that poor public school student scores have been Ontario's problem for a lot longer than the current government. They've existed for several decades, through administrations of all three major parties. And education has been a major recipient of money throughout that time. Yet despite the money, there's very little result. I don't think money is going to solve the problem.

I agree we'll be in for a rough ride, but better a rough ride now with hope of improvement in the future, than simply sailing along the way we were before, ignoring the waterfall up ahead.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

My family has three generations of educators. During those years and years of teaching, we've collectively weathered 3 major strikes. In every case, EVERY CASE, it was NOT about Teacher's income.

It was about classroom resources.
It was about Classroom sizes.
It was about Governmental promises to expand needed areas of education that went ignored.

It has never been about wages. Although, the School Boards (hence: Government) love to shine the light on that little issue SOLELY and the media is always hungry to snap it up and chew on it. Teachers want to teach, just as Pete said.

My wife is a prime example of Pete's hour example. (This is an Albertan example) She works from 8:30am to 5pm daily. During that time, 9am to 330pm is the actual instruction time. The excess time is taken by doing prep, marking, counselling, Parent meetings, tutoring (huge one, that), Yearbook and Writer's Club. She gets home at 5pm and visits her family through supper until 8pm, when the kidlets go to bed. At that point, she pulls out her work and proceeds to mark until 10:30 or 11pm.

Makes for a rather long day.

Add to this consideration the Coaching she's done on past years (which is NOT paid extra for, thankeeverymuch) and the various evenings and weekends that THAT ties up.

Now, Canadian schools are a tad different than US Schools. We run through until the end of June.. so only 2 months of summer holidays, compared to your three. However, that only really adds about another 20 or so days of actual "teaching".

The final point is: Teachers are paid that "yearly amount" based on their actual year (that being either the 180 days or 200 days). Most Teachers have their income spread out over the 12 actual months of the year so they don't starve to death in the summer.

That is: Teachers get paid enough. Teachers get paid enough that they're quite comparable to other situations with similar surroundings from similar personal post-secondary.

What Teachers do NOT get enough of... is support. Support from their Administration. Support from their Government. Support from their students' parents.

So, when someone tends to be drawn along by their lip by the Media-mongering of "Those greedy Teachers"... I get a tad upset at the myopia they suffer from.

*tips helm*

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

From a non-teaching perspective, I find it hard to explain the teachers' repeated gripes. They strike every two years (ostensibly "for the students", though it's clear as to how their education is suffering). They whine about reduced preparation time (other professionals don't get any - they use personal time, meaning they get almost no spare time of their own). They cry about having to administer standardized testing (which is the only way to stop the illiterate high-school graduates we've had in the past). All the while, getting three months of virtual holiday a year.

It looks a lot like they don't want to work too hard and resent the government trying to make them.

I am not saying that it's the case. But it looks like it.

You're buying the media, Skan. I can understand this sort of feeling when you take into consideration only the soundbites that the media (and hence: government) is handing out... but you need to dig deeper.

The truth is; the big issues that Teachers and their Unions approach the Government about have little to do with income, and everything to do with quality of education.

If you seek to find the truth, I suggest that you interview a teacher over coffee. After hearing what he/she says about their years in the trenches and what they REALLY would like to see coming their way... I believe that you'll note that "MORE $$$" doesn't come up at all.

As in all things, the truth lies between the two sides of the issue... and definitely sits somewhere above the absolute bull#$%& that the media hands out at 6pm, nightly. It's up to the "Thinking Citizen" to attempt to actually find it.

Good luck.

*tips helm*

[Den]

1)  Just how good is a 'basic' education elsewhere, compared to here?

2)  What exactly does a college education mean elsewhere? 

3)  What drives these numbers anyway?

Do the Lurkers have any thoughts to add or light to shed here?

Pete: "There was a test that was available at least to the US military that tested the grade level equivalence of one's knowledge. The test was in multiple parts, each with a fairly long time allotment. It was strictly "fact based", with no aptitude portion. If I'm vague, it is because all this is from my memories from '65.

Anyway, I had some free time and I took that test. My background, then, was one incomplete quarter at GA Tech. The result of the test was second year master's student. I'd say the yardstick for educational levels was pretty short even back then."
-----------------------------------------------------------

1. I'd say that it's as good as the student cares to make it. If kids are graduating illiterates then it's because they spent more time figuring out how to get out of reading then they did reading.

2. Not much IMO, it will definitely get you into some interviews. But it's no guaratee of financial success. There are lots of college grads working at Starbucks, and there are HS Grads that found something they're good at who make $75,000 or more. Go figure?

3. I have no idea!

Pete: Back when I was in 3rd grade we started taking standardized tests designed to measure our basic skills on a scale of K - HS Grad. The categories were English Comp, Writing, Vocabulary, Math, etc.. From grades 3 - 6 we took the test twice a year and each time I scored HS Grad in every single category except Math. If a 3rd grader can virtually test out of HS then the bar isn't set low, it's laying on the ground!

[--Pete]

Hi,

the bar isn't set low, it's laying on the ground!

Darn bar :)

--Pete

[Skandranon]

You're buying the media, Skan.  I can understand this sort of feeling when you take into consideration only the soundbites that the media (and hence: government) is handing out... but you need to dig deeper.

I find that a rather insulting accusation when I went out of my way to point out that it only LOOKS that way, not that it's actually the case. I know that the media isn't telling the whole story, thanks, and I don't need you to tell me when I already said so.

That said, explain to me exactly how strikes improve the quality of education? Especially those that have denied Ontario students of several months of their school years many times in the last decade? How does that improve quality of education?

Money isn't the only issue, of course, I understand that. But it's a central piece, as that OISE document proves. Teachers like to talk about wages and how low they are, and in this case I am listening to the Ontario Teachers' Association's media and not the media in general or the government. I don't think they're any less biased, but the common mention of wages in their own press releases means something, does it not? As for the other things, I mentioned them, as well, especially "preparation time". I've made an effort to understand what they're looking for, and I concede that a number of their demands are reasonable. But I also need to point out that there isn't that much to go around and that the teachers are, quite often, looking for a bigger piece of the pie than the government can afford to give.

It's a natural bargaining technique, I'll say that. I probably wouldn't mind if not for the strikes. I'm annoyed that teachers choose to damage students' education while claiming to be trying to improve it. I'm annoyed that they seem to believe that striking and stopping school will suddenly change the economic situation. I'm annoyed that they continually interpret an I'm sorry, we can't do that as a We don't want you to have it. That's what annoys me about Ontario teachers.

(All right, maybe there's a bit of resentment over the Teachers' Pension Fund and the fact they own far too much of the Maple Leafs to make me comfortable. But let's keep that one secret. ;) )

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Money isn't the only issue, of course, I understand that. But it's a central piece, as that OISE document proves. Teachers like to talk about wages and how low they are, and in this case I am listening to the Ontario Teachers' Association's media and not the media in general or the government.

OISE has NOTHING to do with Teachers. It is the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. University publications are not part of the bargain, and usually write this sort of claptrap so as to entice their students into further flushing of their RESPs into UofT Tuition toilets. Further, the author of this little "article" is basing his assertions, front and center, on the speeches made by one Jan Ecker, ONTARIO MINISTER OF EDUCATION. This would be the same Provincial government that handles and controls th greater portion of the transfer funds that keep said University of Toronto afloat.

Smelling the Government, yet? Catch that scent of Partisanship?

You can quote righteous indignation if you choose, Skan... and I commiserate with the state of your beloved Leafs. But you need to dig a bit past your biases, here.

Once again, I would suggest you talk directly to an actual TEACHER at a local school. There's not nearly as much political b.s. between the chalkboard and the student-desk.

*tips helm*

[yangman]

It's saddening how much the people in charge of education in our governments actually know or care about what goes in inside and around our schools.

The British Columbia Minister of Education, Christie Clarke, has recently been pushing forward an idea to create a "shared lunch period" for highschool students. Thanks Christie, but no thanks. With the recent joined graduation of gr.10 and gr.9 students from middleschool, our highschools are already packed. This year, the gr.9's at my school was allocated the same C block lunch to make the transition from middle school to highschool "easier". To put it politely, it was hell -- the bored teens left the hallways cluttered and noisy, the cafeteria an ant-hill, and our heads aching. And this is on a nice sunny day when there are MOBS of gr.9's hanging around outside the building. Now you want all twenty-one hundred students out AT ONCE? You can take that idea and shove it I say.

Oh, did I mention that she wants to make PE madetory for gr.11 and gr.12 students as well?
I am for physical fitness as much as the next guy, but trying selling that idea to students who are already going from 8am to 4pm WITHOUT an "actual" lunch block trying to get as far as they can to lighten the load on their last year, or even just trying to take enough courses to qualify for a certain department at university while still doing the things they enjoy, like music.

Speaking of music, our beloved Minister of Education was reported to have abruptly walked out of a recent concert that was performed specifically for the head figures of our school district, in the middle of a song. :blink: Guess students taking many hours of valuable time out of their schedule that could have been spent resting or studying wasn't enough interest to her. Well, fair trade I guess: us students aren't interested in her ideas either. <_<

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's saddening how much the people in charge of education in our governments actually know or care about what goes in inside and around the our schools.

A person I know who is a retired school teacher has a theory about this. He claims that politicians have a vested interest in keeping the level of the schools as low as possible. They know that no educated person wold vote for any of them.

I often suspect that that theory is true. OTOH, "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity". So I guess it can go either way.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

That is a problem, as I see it: metrics and timing.

If you want a valid measure of how a school system change influences the outcome of the average student, even considering that only a portion of what the State offers is an input to the total product, I suggest that you would need no less than a six year period, and more likely a 10 year period, to track and analyze the progress and score of a given entering class, at grade one, or grade 7, to its end at grade 6 or 12. Then, a few years in a row of data would be handy to make the numbers settle down to alleviate any "special cause" spikes, such as . . . maybe . . . a teachers strike? :)

What politician is in office at the State level, and holds education as his or her prime focus, for an extended period of time? Without creating a good idea of the month every few years?

Should we wonder why the continual tinkering with the system (yes, footnote Deming on that one) produces varied and posibley even unsatisfying results?

The metrics, if they are allowed to grow from stable condition to "change x eplicit variables" at a time might actually tell us something that we are doing correctly, or incorrectly. I do not believe that anyone has that patience, or willingness to adapt a scientific method.

*evil grin*

Oh, by the way, what is the standard 12th grade level of "self esteem" and how is it measured? Total piercings? Total drug overdoses? Total car wrecks? Total suicide attempts? Total attitude problems documented in class? Total bad hair days?

*ducks*

[whyBish]

Teachers here are paid based on levels of experience and it ranges in NZ$ between 40,000 to 60,000 IIRC. Converting that to USD that is approx. 16,000-24,000 USD... And you are talking about 30,000 being a low starting salary?!

I investigated becoming a teacher in this country, but as an entry level I.T. worker I'm already near the middle of the pay scale with much more room to improve. The problem is that (public) teachers get paid the same everywhere, so teachers with skills that have shortages cannot get any more (Adam Smith anyone?)... we are short of Math/Tech/Economics teachers, all of which I have, but there's nothing in it for me, especially when my I.T. contract explicitly limits the number of hours I am required to work.

I think Canada/U.S. are in a very good position education-wise, like Pete I would prefer to see some numbers rather than the anecdotes floating around. U.S. and Canada both have a larger proportion of graduates in 'value creation' areas of technology/science/engineering (c.f. N.Z. where we have about a third(?) of graduates in accounting and law...for this alone I would halve the number of graduates listed above for NZ)

I can't comment on comparable quality, as I don't know the standards of international institutions. I do however tend to think that (recognised) university level courses would be at fairly similar levels due to universities having large numbers of lecturers of international origin, but as for an actual comparison, how could you measure?

[ShadowHM]

Oh, by the way, what is the standard 12th grade level of "self esteem" and how is it measured?&nbsp; Total piercings?&nbsp; Total drug overdoses?&nbsp; Total car wrecks?&nbsp; Total suicide attempts? Total attitude problems documented in class?&nbsp; Total bad hair days?

AT this time of the year, in the social circles that my eldest hangs with......

The most important measure is:

Did I get any University acceptances yet?

[ShadowHM]

Hi Skan,


Forgive me for saying so, but your post reads like that of a man who has no personal involvement with the system.

And, I am staggered to hear you say that you know doctors (I will assume Medical Doctors and not Ph.D.'s in History) and lawyers who would love to make $35 K per year.

I urge you, before you vote next time on such limited information, please do as Nico suggested. Find a teacher and ask. Find an experienced teacher - one that has been in the system for a good 20 years. Ask your friends to recommend one - surely you know somebody with kids?

I don't know enough about education elsewhere. (Hence this thread in the first place.) But I am fairly familiar with the Ontario system in general and the Toronto situation in particular. I also have a passing familiarity with the Michigan and upper New York State systems, due to cottage neighbours.

The teachers are not the problem. Their discontent is a symptom of the problem.

I will make a feeble attempt at a list of the things that have gone wrong.

We have a government in Ontario right now that is both paternalistic and evangelical about 'their' solutions to problems. So we have a 'funding formula' that assumes that all schools and school boards are the same. This poses serious problems to urban schools, in a myriad of ways, mostly to do with E.S.L. issues, but also fringing on multi-cultural issues, poverty, crime, etc. Rural schools get shafted on transportation costs.

The 'system' has become increasingly inclusive. This sounds great in principle. Keep 'em all, eh? But a lot of the kids that were not even in the system before are now being kept there, and they cost. They cost money, they cost energy and they need resources. Some of them are violent; some are learning disabled; some are physically disabled.

Discipline in schools is problematic. Years of political correctness have made a situation where there are really only two possibilities - suspend the kid or deal with their disruptions and take time away from other children. When I was a kid (hehe - tottering on my cane here, eh?) the problem kids that remained in the school got physical punishment. There was a graduated response set that took place before a kid got out of the system, and they could be sent out of the system. Now they HAVE to be there, in some way or form. And if the local school is unable to deal with them, then we have to pay to transport them elsewhere. I could rant on and on about this problem. The world is full of dual working parents now, especially in the cities. Who minds the suspended kid? Who is responsible at all, because the average Joe doesn't seem to think they should be. I will stop myself there before I wander too far down that tangent. The point is that we have dumped a lot of discipline issues on teachers and they have no recourses.

Curriculum is an issue. Society has deemed that a lot of things should be added to it, and nothing has ever been removed. So now we have drug education, civic responsibility education, street-proofing education, etc. That takes time away from the core subjects.

Paperwork.......bureaucracy runs on paperwork. Instead of *merely* teaching, preparing lesson plans and marking (you know, those things that teachers are supposed to do?) there are forms to fill in......whopping reams of them and they HAVE increased dramatically in the past few years.


I need more coffee and am running out of steam now. So.....

Yes....a rough ride ahead, because all of these things have been building for a long time. And, I seriously urge you to talk to an experienced teacher before you make more pronouncements about the state of Ontario's education system.

[dwa]

1)&nbsp; Just how good is a 'basic' education elsewhere, compared to here?

2)&nbsp; What exactly does a college education mean elsewhere?&nbsp;

3)&nbsp; What drives these numbers anyway?

Do the Lurkers have any thoughts to add or light to shed here?

Pete: "There was a test that was available at least to the US military that tested the grade level equivalence of one's knowledge. The test was in multiple parts, each with a fairly long time allotment. It was strictly "fact based", with no aptitude portion. If I'm vague, it is because all this is from my memories from '65.

Anyway, I had some free time and I took that test. My background, then, was one incomplete quarter at GA Tech. The result of the test was second year master's student. I'd say the yardstick for educational levels was pretty short even back then."
-----------------------------------------------------------

1. I'd say that it's as good as the student cares to make it. If kids are graduating illiterates then it's because they spent more time figuring out how to get out of reading then they did reading.

2. Not much IMO, it will definitely get you into some interviews. But it's no guaratee of financial success. There are lots of college grads working at Starbucks, and there are HS Grads that found something they're good at who make $75,000 or more. Go figure?

3. I have no idea!

Pete: Back when I was in 3rd grade we started taking standardized tests designed to measure our basic skills on a scale of K - HS Grad. The categories were English Comp, Writing, Vocabulary, Math, etc.. From grades 3 - 6 we took the test twice a year and each time I scored HS Grad in every single category except Math. If a 3rd grader can virtually test out of HS then the bar isn't set low, it's laying on the ground!

That sounds familiar to a test I also took up through the 6th grade. However, it was not designed as "what a student of x grade should know" but "what the average student of that level would know". I.e.-if you scored high school senior/early college student (like I did the last two times I took the test), that just meant you were as "smart" as the average high school senior/college freshman. Which is probably cause for some alarm, but not for the standards of the test.