Hello Americans. Are you really all stupid?

Jun 6, 2004
9,234
0
0
Comparing generally literate nations (as in not some backwater African country with little to no educational system), I believe that more people would allow for a greater number of illiterates. Granted, those "extra people" could tip the scales either way, but it would seem that neither we, nor the people conducting the study know the specifics. I'm basically saying that between nations with similar levels in educational standards, a nation which supports a significantly larger number of people will have a harder time educating that many people. A smaller nation might have enough money to properly educated most of its citizens while a larger one will have to expend a lot more cash to accomplish the same goal. Of course, the US *should* be spending more on education anyway, but obviously that has not been the case as we've been spending our money elsewhere.
 
Jun 9, 2004
5,818
1
0
Leon said:
They've even created sports THEY only participate in, as if to avoid confronting foreign blood. The 3 most popular sports in the USA : The NBA? 90% of American players. American football? "Soccer" is dismissed as a foreign sport and frowned upon... Baseball world series? Last I checked, the world consisted of much more teams than this.
The rest of your rant on the U.S. is all fine and dandy, but I'd just like to point out that basketball was invented up here in Canada. :D

Yeah, that's why we invented pretty much EVERYTHING that keeps the modern world running. You know, things like electricity, the light bulb, automobiles, radio, microprocessors, airplanes. Unimportant things no one needs, really.
The first automobile was built back in 1771 by Nicolas Joseph Cugnot, a French engineer. Improvements were made later on in France again during the 1800's, and in Grmany towards the end of the 1800's. The first mass produced one, 1901 Curved Dash Oldsmobile, was created in the U.S. But the automobile wasn't invented by Americans. The light bulb was invented at the same time in England AND the United States, so you can't claim sole inventor...ness on that one either. The radio as we know it was invented by Nikola Tesla, who was born in Austria. As for electricity, that's somewhat of a grey area. See the thing is, Michael Faraday from London was the first person to actually generate electricity. Benjamin Franklin "discovered" it, but it was a non-American that was the first to actually generate it.

Anyhoo, with that out of the way, carry on. heh
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
Belfast said:
Comparing generally literate nations (as in not some backwater African country with little to no educational system), I believe that more people would allow for a greater number of illiterates. Granted, those "extra people" could tip the scales either way, but it would seem that neither we, nor the people conducting the study know the specifics. I'm basically saying that between nations with similar levels in educational standards, a nation which supports a significantly larger number of people will have a harder time educating that many people. A smaller nation might have enough money to properly educated most of its citizens while a larger one will have to expend a lot more cash to accomplish the same goal. Of course, the US *should* be spending more on education anyway, but obviously that has not been the case as we've been spending our money elsewhere.
I don't see it. A country with more population can raise more money overall, and about the same per capita, as a smaller nation. And a larger nation will have more teachers overall and about the same per-capita.

The fact is, the US is made up of smaller units, and Canada should have no more or less trouble educating it's population than a similarily sized (in terms of population) segment of the united states. Say, California. In the end, I suspect the statistical difference caused by overall population size is probably not that significant. However, it is interesting that the largest of the top 10 in literacy are all under 100m (I think), except Japan.

Now if the US has some large specific segment of the population that is dragging it down, that's another thing.

Also, literacy tends to be defined at a pretty low level. We're not talking reading moby dick here, we're talking pretty much Grade 6 level. And the differences among the top 20 or so of that study are probably in the tenths of percentage points within a range of 95-99%.
 
Jun 6, 2004
9,234
0
0
Well, that's what I'm saying, basically. The percentage difference may not be that big overall, but when the top 20 are likely so close, a couple percentage points could mean the difference between being in 15th and being in 7th or something like that. MOST of the top countries for literacy are smallish European countries and the larger ones like Canada and Australia have decent-sized populations, but also a lot of land where very few people actually live. The larger nations with big populations like India, China, and Russia aren't even on there at all. I do think size does matter, but the above countries have the added problems of really bad goverments/economies overall. The US thankfully has enough money to keep illiteracy from becoming a huge problem, but even a small difference in percentage points due to a larger population might make it seem like its in a lot worse position than it really is.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,491
1,190
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
No, not everyone in the US is ignorant. People who believe that, however, could be considered ignorant...

As with any country, you have plenty of fools running about. The media loves the ignorant, however...which is one reason for the mis-understanding, I'm afraid.

What's an American's idea of travelling for the holidays? Take a trip to Florida? Miami? Maybe Cancun? Dominican Republic? Even if they do have the means, travelling abroad (Europe, Middle East, Asia) is usually a second choice (if that) for many Americans. And who can blame them?
Living in Europe and visiting another country is nowhere near as expensive or difficult as it is for Americans, and that is a problem. There are enough nice areas to visit that never require you to set foot in a plane. You can just jump in the car and drive to nice resort while having a blast. It isn't that people don't WANT to travel abroad, it is simply too expensive and difficult to pull off (especially with a family). Plane tickets to Europe + dealing with passports and such would simply cost too much money and require too much effort for many many people. Flying to Europe or some other foreign country is something that many people wish to do, but it just isn't feasible. Do you realize just how much cheaper it is to just "drive to Florida" or something similar?

You're right, though...many people don't NEED to concern themselves with outside affairs. When you consider how incredibly demanding the job field has become as of late, it should seem obvious why people are more focused on something that directly effects them. That isn't an American trait...that is human nature.
 
Jun 7, 2004
10,985
0
0
Houston, Tx
DeadStar said:
Stupidity is rampant amongst the whole world not just limited to America. But i would agree that Americans are indeed rather (willfully?) ignorant to the world outside of them and really couldnt care less.
This is pretty much how I feel, except for one small difference... I think the US should stop babysitting 3rd world countries... they're not our problem.

No one could ever sucessfully invade the US. Why should we care about outsiders?
 
Jun 7, 2004
7,787
1
1,315
myzhi said:
Misinformation like this makes me wonder what people are thinking.

1) America has tons of programs that deals with poverty, welfare, low income housing, food stamps, medicare, paid school tuition, and etc. If people are willing to look, you can get help. Unfortunately, many people rather have the government pamper them for life then try to improve there status.
Improve their status how? Without a college degree, you will have trouble pulling down a job beyond the woefully inadequate minimum wage range unless you know people. Given the options, welfare is a better deal than working in a dead end job that doesn't provide for you.


3) The UN is a great idea, but in real life, it's not practical. Sure, we all like to believe that people all over the world with different backgrounds could come together to bring peace and harmony to all mankind. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen. To many egos and self interest there.
Wrong. That's just present Republican propaganda designed to vindicate our present unilateral policy. Fact is, (at least in terms of the Security Council) that there are many missions undertaken by the UN which are allowed to go through, because none of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council care enough to block the mission (for example, East Timor). Also, in terms of peacekeeping and nation building, no other organization in the world is as effective as the UN. Why? It's not a unilateral move, it involves many nations and thus it is less suspect to be driven in the self interest of one nation for its own interests. I'm not even delving into the UN's humanitarian work, of which there is loads to talk about. Ultimately, the UN's purpose is to be a meeting ground, where issues can be solved. It is not an organization that can solve any problem, but it is better than having no organization around in the first place.
 
Jun 8, 2004
2,364
0
0
dark10x said:
No, not everyone in the US is ignorant. People who believe that, however, could be considered ignorant...

As with any country, you have plenty of fools running about. The media loves the ignorant, however...which is one reason for the mis-understanding, I'm afraid.



Living in Europe and visiting another country is nowhere near as expensive or difficult as it is for Americans, and that is a problem. There are enough nice areas to visit that never require you to set foot in a plane. You can just jump in the car and drive to nice resort while having a blast. It isn't that people don't WANT to travel abroad, it is simply too expensive and difficult to pull off (especially with a family). Plane tickets to Europe + dealing with passports and such would simply cost too much money and require too much effort for many many people. Flying to Europe or some other foreign country is something that many people wish to do, but it just isn't feasible. Do you realize just how much cheaper it is to just "drive to Florida" or something similar?

You're right, though...many people don't NEED to concern themselves with outside affairs. When you consider how incredibly demanding the job field has become as of late, it should seem obvious why people are more focused on something that directly effects them. That isn't an American trait...that is human nature.
Good post. I know exactly what you mean on the travel part. If it wasn't for that fact that my dad was in the military, I doubt that I would have ever set a foot outside of America. It isn't easy to go abroad outside of professional reasons.

As for the main question, American's aren't all stupid. Our media really creates a false portrait of the country's citizens. I do agree that too many of us aren't terribly concerned with the rest of the world--that's a serious problem in such a globalized era.
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,839
0
1,395
i182.photobucket.com
Mike Works said:
See, this is why us Canadians always chuckle at the constant reminders that you guys could invade us anytime you want. You wouldn't be able to read the road signs, you'd miscalculate the distance to our capital, and I don't know how you'd fuck up scientifically, but I'm sure you'd find a way!
Of course. Damn French signs in Quebec and no one down here can read Metric. Give me inches, feet, and miles damn it!!! :p
 
Jun 6, 2004
18,609
0
0
www.narbosa.com
Stupidity is rampant amongst the whole world not just limited to America. But i would agree that Americans are indeed rather (willfully?) ignorant to the world outside of them and really couldnt care less.
No, from my experience, Americans are not necessarily any dumber than other people. I'd say they're more closeted and ignorant. Just so.. isolated. And vexingly indifferent to the fact.

its simple. We're #1 and don't give a damn about the rest of the world and could really care less about your opinions.

The ignorant label is laughable because that is someone on the outside projecting " Hey, we are important but those damn Americans are uninformed about <insert topic>" to make that as the reason. The fact Americans really doesn't give a damn just pisses people off.



I think that covers it.
 
Jun 9, 2004
5,818
1
0
Ripclawe said:
its simple. We're #1 and don't give a damn about the rest of the world and could really care less about your opinions.

The ignorant label is laughable because that is someone on the outside projecting " Hey, we are important but those damn Americans are uninformed about <insert topic>" to make that as the reason. The fact Americans really doesn't give a damn just pisses people off.



I think that covers it.
Ok, at this point I have to ask, have you been a joke character all this time?
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
0
Americans are laughably unaware/ignorant of a lot of issues. But then so are a lot of people in the first world. Whether they are more so...that's another question.
 
Jun 9, 2004
348
0
0
Regarding education in High School and below, while the rest of the world emphasize math and science, the US still tries to emphasize a renascence man. Heck, even college undergrads programs still has this problem. Also, some countries have kids going going school 6 days a week, longer school day, more days a year, and/or etc. then America school system. Given A & B, it's going to be hard for US kids to compete.


Now, if you look at undergrad and above, the think the results will look different. Probably due to the fact that America has enough higher institute of learning to accommodate everybody. For example, Hong Kong has 1 major univeristy for 5 million people. Think of competition to get in and amount of lives that won't get a chance to continue on. Not a lot of people become geniuses in High school.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
0
myzhi said:
Now, if you look at undergrad and above, the think the results will look different. Probably due to the fact that America has enough higher institute of learning to accommodate everybody. For example, Hong Kong has 1 major univeristy for 5 million people. Think of competition to get in and amount of lives that won't get a chance to continue on. Not a lot of people become geniuses in High school.
Just had to disagree on your observation on Genius - a genius is born, you don't become a genius. Sure, school/university can help you channel your talent and focus it on something, but you can not go to school/college, and still be a genius (if an undiscovered one).

BTW, Hong Kong is a bit of an extreme. I'd say most well developed countries in the Western World (well, Europe/US anyway) can see their kids into college if the kids so wish.

edit - one problem with America and universities is the ungodly fees you have to pay to enter. I think that immediately keeps people from a certain background out of that system, so they'll never break out of the cycle, their children likely won't etc. etc. Where I'm from, university is free, and plenty of people who wouldn't otherwise go to college, do. The scope for moving "upwards" socially, economically, is bigger.
 
Jun 9, 2004
348
0
0
gofreak said:
Just had to disagree on your observation on Genius - a genius is born, you don't become a genius. Sure, school/university can help you channel your talent and focus it on something, but you can not go to school/college, and still be a genius (if an undiscovered one).

BTW, Hong Kong is a bit of an extreme. I'd say most well developed countries in the Western World (well, Europe/US anyway) can see their kids into college if the kids so wish.


edit - one problem with America and universities is the ungodly fees you have to pay to enter. I think that immediately keeps people from a certain background out of that system, so they'll never break out of the cycle, their children likely won't etc. etc. Where I'm from, university is free, and plenty of people who wouldn't otherwise go to college, do. The scope for moving "upwards" socially, economically, is bigger.

Sorry, but have to disagree. A genius is not always born one. Sometimes their discovery can be through luck. Secondly, some genius don't develope / discover things until they work in the lab, field, and etc. Thus, if they never got a chance to develope, that person won't ever be consider "genius."


Take Japan as another example.


As for "ungodly" fees, you must be talking about private institutions only. Public colleges are still relatively cheap. Plus, you an get financial aid and scholarships which could mean free education. Heck, my Fiancée had a free ride.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
myzhi said:
Regarding education in High School and below, while the rest of the world emphasize math and science, the US still tries to emphasize a renascence man. Heck, even college undergrads programs still has this problem. Also, some countries have kids going going school 6 days a week, longer school day, more days a year, and/or etc. then America school system. Given A & B, it's going to be hard for US kids to compete.


Now, if you look at undergrad and above, the think the results will look different. Probably due to the fact that America has enough higher institute of learning to accommodate everybody. For example, Hong Kong has 1 major univeristy for 5 million people. Think of competition to get in and amount of lives that won't get a chance to continue on. Not a lot of people become geniuses in High school.
Is any of this true of any of the higher rated countries on that list? I know that neither of those 'facts' (focus on math and science or 6 day school week) are true of Canada, nor is Hong Kong even rated on any of the charts, so I don't see why it enters into anything. England and Canada can't exactly be considered shoddy in terms of post-secondary, I can't really speak to any others.
 
Jun 9, 2004
348
0
0
maharg said:
Is any of this true of any of the higher rated countries on that list? I know that neither of those 'facts' (focus on math and science or 6 day school week) are true of Canada, nor is Hong Kong even rated on any of the charts, so I don't see why it enters into anything. England and Canada can't exactly be considered shoddy in terms of post-secondary, I can't really speak to any others.

Maybe you miss the "and/or," so they may not all apply to every country. But, last time I check, Canada has 13 grades vs 12 in US. 1 extra year of study is still an advantage. Can you tell me hours in a day and how many days a year Canadians are in school? And, example of a 6 day education is Japan. Hong Kong is based on the England system so it could somewhat apply.
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,839
0
1,395
i182.photobucket.com
gofreak said:
edit - one problem with America and universities is the ungodly fees you have to pay to enter. I think that immediately keeps people from a certain background out of that system, so they'll never break out of the cycle, their children likely won't etc. etc. Where I'm from, university is free, and plenty of people who wouldn't otherwise go to college, do. The scope for moving "upwards" socially, economically, is bigger.
Public state universities are very affordable (assuming you live in that state), it's the out-of-state schools and the private ones that are expensive. Even if you can't afford a university, there are always community colleges. They are even cheaper and if you make good grades, it's very easy to transfer into a university to finish.

And while your univerities are free, I'm sure you pay for them in other ways (i.e. higher tax rates).
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
0
My definition of genius doesn't necessitate their discovery/realisation of their talent - but taking that into account, then yes, of course, school/college feeds that process.

I wasn't aware there were free public colleges, so I'll retract my second point. However, do they match the quality of private institutions?

Finally, I have to agree with maharg, at least judging from my own experience - in primary school (elementary school for you, I guess), there was NO science at all, and most of the focus was on languages, and then math. It was very much the "renaissance" education you speak of - we did music, we did lots of art, languages, math etc. Math didn't take up any more time than anything else. Math became more of a focus in Secondary (High) School, but still no more than something like english. Science also got no more focus than other subjects like business or history etc.

However, once you hit college, you pretty much lock yourself in to what you want to do..I believe in the US, lots of people take lots of different classes for a year or two before deciding on what to do (their major?)?
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
0
AirBrian said:
And while your univerities are free, I'm sure you pay for them in other ways (i.e. higher tax rates).
Of course, but I'm happy to pay higher taxes whilst things like that are free for all. However the taxes where I am aren't quite as horrible as they are in other parts of Europe (you don't pay any tax up to a certain point, then after that you pay about 20% up to another point, then after that you pay 40% on the rest...fewer people pay at the top rate than used to in the past).
 

maharg

idspispopd
Jan 1, 1970
12,504
0
0
myzhi said:
Maybe you miss the "and/or," so they may not all apply to every country. But, last time I check, Canada has 13 grades vs 12 in US. 1 extra year of study is still an advantage. Can you tell me hours in a day and how many days a year Canadians are in school? And, example of a 6 day education is Japan. Hong Kong is based on the England system so it could somewhat apply.
Ontario has a grade 13, and it's not mandatory, afaik. Quebec has something similar I think. It's not across the entire country, though. It's also kind of important to note that the study in question was 15 year olds, who have not completed their 10th years, let along 13th.

Canadian grade school is about 6 hours a day five days a week afaik (usually one day is short, though). I don't know the exact figures for year length, though, and it almost certainly varies by province anyways (hell, it varies by school district even). I also haven't been in school for rather a long time, and it seems like the grade school day and year gets shorter every year, so my info is probably out of date.
 
Jun 9, 2004
5,818
1
0
maharg said:
Canadian grade school is about 6 hours a day five days a week afaik (usually one day is short, though). I don't know the exact figures for year length, though, and it almost certainly varies by province anyways (hell, it varies by school district even). I also haven't been in school for rather a long time, and it seems like the grade school day and year gets shorter every year, so my info is probably out of date.
The shortened day thing only happens up until grade 3. Well at least that's how it was for me. Used to get out early at 1pm on Mondays.
 
Jun 9, 2004
348
0
0
gofreak said:
My definition of genius doesn't necessitate their discovery/realisation of their talent - but taking that into account, then yes, of course, school/college feeds that process.

I wasn't aware there were free public colleges, so I'll retract my second point. However, do they match the quality of private institutions?

Finally, I have to agree with maharg, at least judging from my own experience - in primary school (elementary school for you, I guess), there was NO science at all, and most of the focus was on languages, and then math. It was very much the "renaissance" education you speak of - we did music, we did lots of art, languages, math etc. Math didn't take up any more time than anything else. Math became more of a focus in Secondary (High) School, but still no more than something like english. Science also got no more focus than other subjects like business or history etc.

However, once you hit college, you pretty much lock yourself in to what you want to do..I believe in the US, lots of people take lots of different classes for a year or two before deciding on what to do (their major?)?


The best schools are private institutions, but not all. But, is that suprising at all? Not are colleges are created equal. Even then, if you are very smart enough, you can still get a free ride there.


In your school, you does it also include classes for stuff like home education (cooking, sowing, and etc.), physical education (Gym), study hall (more like nap time), and etc.?


For US, we can wait 2 years before deciding on a major. During the 2 years, you will have take tons of classes which could be way outside of you field.
 
Jun 7, 2004
7,787
1
1,315
I wasn't aware there were free public colleges, so I'll retract my second point. However, do they match the quality of private institutions?
They aren't free. I just did a semester abroad at the University of Melbourne and from my experience the Aussies have it cheaper with their system. They might have to pay higher taxes, but they necessarily are not paying 60,000 more bucks in taxes than we are. Public Universities might be *relatively* cheap, but you still have to pay 60,000 dollars for a 4 year course. (Housing is factored in here) That is not cheap. However, compared to private institutions it is cheap.

Also, only a few public universities can compete with the elite private universities.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
0
myzhi said:
The best schools are private institutions, but not all. But, is that suprising at all? Not are colleges are created equal. Even then, if you are very smart enough, you can still get a free ride there.
It does create something of a two tier system, though, that depends on your financial status. I bet every year, there are smarter "poor" kids who don't get into private colleges when rich kids who aren't quite so smart, do. It's good that not all the best schools are private, though.

We did do gym right through primary/secondary, and there was after school study in secondary for those who wanted it. For one year, I did Home Economics...in all girls schools, it's available every year. We did tonnes of subjects...and it's become even more varied since I left. For your first 3 years in secondary school, you do english, irish, maths, a continental language (german/french/spanish/italian), geography, history, business, civics studies, PE, religion, computers, science, art or technical drawing or woodwork, or metalwork or music...some others I can't quite remember. After that, you can also choose to do an extra year, that is simply all about "alternative" stuff you wouldn't otherwise do in school. Then you do your two final years before college, where things become more focussed...you choose 6 or 7 subjects out of a fairly wide range.
 
Jun 9, 2004
348
0
0
gofreak said:
It does create something of a two tier system, though, that depends on your financial status. I bet every year, there are smarter "poor" kids who don't get into private colleges when rich kids who aren't quite so smart, do. It's good that not all the best schools are private, though.

We did do gym right through primary/secondary, and there was after school study in secondary for those who wanted it. For one year, I did Home Economics...in all girls schools, it's available every year. We did tonnes of subjects...and it's become even more varied since I left. For your first 3 years in secondary school, you do english, irish, maths, a continental language (german/french/spanish/italian), geography, history, business, civics studies, PE, religion, computers, science, art or technical drawing or woodwork, or metalwork or music...some others I can't quite remember. After that, you can also choose to do an extra year, that is simply all about "alternative" stuff you wouldn't otherwise do in school. Then you do your two final years before college, where things become more focussed...you choose 6 or 7 subjects out of a fairly wide range.


You could think of it as a 2 tier system, private run by people and public by government, but under same minimum requirements for degree. Obviously, the higher rated schools will have better faculty. Finiancial status affects you way beyond just schooling. Sure, I envy rich kids, but I have to deal with what fate gave me.


Hmm, you seem have done the same stuff as we do except you get to choose stuff. In America, we are stuck with following the pre-describe scheduling with some minor adjustments.
 
Jun 7, 2004
14,839
0
1,395
i182.photobucket.com
gofreak said:
It does create something of a two tier system, though, that depends on your financial status. I bet every year, there are smarter "poor" kids who don't get into private colleges when rich kids who aren't quite so smart, do. It's good that not all the best schools are private, though.
That is an unfortunate consequence of having private and public schools, although one's wealth will always create advantages no matter in what context. One positive is that employers are starting to recognize that private schools are not necessarily better than public ones. In fact, many public school courses teach the exact same content (even down to the syllabus) as private school courses.

I think the biggest difference between private and public schools is not the academic content itself, but more the sense of tradition/name, faculty, and quality of life outside the classroom (i.e. dorms, extracurricular activities, etc.).
 
Jun 10, 2004
779
0
0
I think the reason why everyone perceive americans (actually, let's not use the term "americans", cause what we're really talking about are... umm... people in the USA) as ignorant/stupid is because that's the public image that your country gives off. I don't know how to explain it properly, but take for example your entertainment exports... I'll be selective and name a few (keyword here, SELECTIVE):
- springer
- ricki lake
- william hung (yes, he's yours now! muahahhaa)
- Jackass
- Bush

Another reason is manageablility. There's no way in hell you can manage a country of that size successfully with the type of Government you have now. IMO, the best thing to do would probably be to get rid of this "United States" business and break apart into separate countries. Each competing with each other to be more successful. That way, you wouldn't have this blanket safety net that makes you feel supreme/arrogant just because you're part of this powerful nation. It's like leaving your parents house for the first time. When you stay at home, you feel safe, you feel as if you don't have to worry about the outside world. But when you move out, everything is different. You start becoming *independent*.

I know I'm not making much sense here, but if you can just filter out the crap that I've typed and get the general gist of it, then hopefully you'll agree.


I also agree with what everyone else has been saying about the american media. I have nothing to add, just wanna agree with it... hehehe

Anyway, I just hope that australia doesn't end up "culturally dysfunctional" (i use that term unoffensively of course), but sadly, it looks like we're sorta heading the way of the USA.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
0
AirBrian said:
That is an unfortunate consequence of having private and public schools, although one's wealth will always create advantages no matter in what context.
Agreed, but as a child, looking forward into your future, you should be not be hobbled by financial status. It's not fair if a brighter person misses out on opportunities later to more average peers because he or she didn't go to a prestigious private institution. It's good if public colleges are beginning to redress the balance though.

One thing I've always wondered is: what would happen if a small fraction of the US military budget was redirected in order to abolish fees? The US could probably pay for all its kids to go to college for free and maintain the status quo with regard to tax, if it was so inclined. Sure, at the moment the US is stretched militarily, but the spending on defense is just extraordinarily high.
 
Jun 9, 2004
153
0
0
Who gives a crap about how stupid the American public is?

We have the hottest women -- and we have the hottest sex. At least I do ;)

Besides, America hasn't been a world super power for 50+ years for being st00pid. There's obviously a reason why we've been kickin' so much ass around the world, and that's because we get all the smartest people from all the other countries.
 
Jun 9, 2004
153
0
0
-=DoAvl=- said:
I think the reason why everyone perceive americans (actually, let's not use the term "americans", cause what we're really talking about are... umm... people in the USA) as ignorant/stupid is because that's the public image that your country gives off. I don't know how to explain it properly, but take for example your entertainment exports... I'll be selective and name a few (keyword here, SELECTIVE):
- springer
- ricki lake
- william hung (yes, he's yours now! muahahhaa)
- Jackass
- Bush

Another reason is manageablility. There's no way in hell you can manage a country of that size successfully with the type of Government you have now. IMO, the best thing to do would probably be to get rid of this "United States" business and break apart into separate countries. Each competing with each other to be more successful. That way, you wouldn't have this blanket safety net that makes you feel supreme/arrogant just because you're part of this powerful nation. It's like leaving your parents house for the first time. When you stay at home, you feel safe, you feel as if you don't have to worry about the outside world. But when you move out, everything is different. You start becoming *independent*.

I know I'm not making much sense here, but if you can just filter out the crap that I've typed and get the general gist of it, then hopefully you'll agree.


I also agree with what everyone else has been saying about the american media. I have nothing to add, just wanna agree with it... hehehe

Anyway, I just hope that australia doesn't end up "culturally dysfunctional" (i use that term unoffensively of course), but sadly, it looks like we're sorta heading the way of the USA.

What the fuck are you talking about?
 
Jun 11, 2004
9,312
248
1,400
All these people getting upset over blanket statements. Shit, "The french are cowards" "Canadians are stupid", "All the middle eastern are terrorists" , heard around the country from good ol' homegrown americans. There's ignorant fuck everywhere, and unfortunately they're the one that get heard more often than sensible people(also found world wide).
 
Jun 9, 2004
348
0
0
gofreak said:
Agreed, but as a child, looking forward into your future, you should be not be hobbled by financial status. It's not fair if a brighter person misses out on opportunities later to more average peers because he or she didn't go to a prestigious private institution. It's good if public colleges are beginning to redress the balance though.

One thing I've always wondered is: what would happen if a small fraction of the US military budget was redirected in order to abolish fees? The US could probably pay for all its kids to go to college for free and maintain the status quo with regard to tax, if it was so inclined. Sure, at the moment the US is stretched militarily, but the spending on defense is just extraordinarily high.


All kids can already go to college (low-high rated) if they wanted by outright paying, financial aid, scholarships, and/or etc. What you are talking about is equal education for all. It's a simple fact that not all colleges are created equal. This is the same every and the US is no exception. Just to throw out an random example, look at Oxford in England. Most colleges in England would be consider "below" Oxford standard, but does it mean the education is crap then?
 
Jun 6, 2004
2,453
0
0
I'm gonna chime in and say the majority of Americans that I know personally are intelligent people, and not fitting of the stereotypes mentioned in this thread. The problem is the stupid ones are the loudest, and tend to be on TV a bit more, and this is the impression the world gets of America, with the Rush Limbaughs and the O'Reillys, so you can't blame people for thinking the US to be a little self centered, even ignorant of the rest of the world's feelings. Not to mention that thinking liberally is being called "Anti-American" lately as well, hammering in that belief.