How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

Elite colleges are not necessarily the place to get the best life prep

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/books/review-in-where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-be-frank-bruni-examines-college-admissions-mania.html?_r=0

This is especially true for wealthier Americans and "elite" institutions, where admission is seen more as a status symbol (like a Tesla or a LV bag) rather than a vehicle for educating and cultivating a young person for the benefit of society (a university's true mission). But actually, the data suggest that graduates of elite schools do not have significantly better life outcomes on the whole vs. graduates from "moderate" state schools. Sure, there are some segments where your pedigree really matters, but do you want to spend the rest of your life in those circles, surrounded by pompous pricks (some snobby corners of tech, Wall Street, etc.)?

And of course two major drawbacks of attending an elite private school are (1) debt and (2) a more bubble experience (your peers will be more homogeneous, and you may not get exposure to many real-life challenges that help a student thrive in the adult world). Also, some students may feel complacent that admission is the endpoint - they made it. Life is just about marketing yourself and jumping through the hoops to earn some administrator's approval, and then you're on easy street.

But admission is actually just the start - students should be driven to maximize their precious opportunity and realize that it is just a first step along a path that has many greater challenges and learnings ahead. Students may feel entitled ("I'm going to have a degree from Yale - of course the top employers will want me, I'm so awesome!"), and then lose focus (or even get lazy) - while other similarly-talented students snubbed by the Ivies might have a chip on their shoulder, rededicating themselves at a state school to be the best they can be. And let's be honest - undergrad chemistry or econ at Harvard vs. Texas will be taught at about the same quality (and probably not much better than Coursera). The concepts and knowledge are identical - it's just how motivated the student is to think critically, set healthy goals, and apply the learnings productively. Upon graduation, which student will likely have more grit and tenacity to succeed in the workplace? Savvy employers know that character/fortitude is way more important than pedigree to help the org succeed.

Some other sick facts about the perverted system:

• In some cases, families are paying admissions "coaches" $50K and starting at age 12 to get their resume in good enough shape to be competitive. Just imagine what message that is sending to the kid for what is required to get ahead.
• Stanford set the record recently for a 5% undergrad admissions rate. Now the bar has moved so of course the Ivies will try to match. They often do this by advertising to students with good metrics, but low chance of admission (maybe no legacy or not from the right demos). This helps puff up their "exclusivity rating" by making the median scores of their applicants look better, while lowering their admissions rates. And as we know from Apple, exclusivity begets disproportionate interest, even if the underlying product doesn't merit it.
• Many administrators and admissions officers know that the system has gone off the rails and want to fix it, but they fear that they will be the only one and then be at a disadvantage vs. their rivals who perpetuate the misguided process.

What happens when you pay teachers $125K?

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/10/27/teacher-salary-study

Kids learn more and good teachers don't quit, of course! A NYC charter school (TEP) tried it out and saw impressive improvements. After the 4-year pilot, TEP students' test scores were about +1.6 years ahead of peers in math, and +0.4 years ahead in English. And this was not a posh suburban academy, it was an >90% low-income and minority school. 

Granted it was just 1 case, but the results were promising enough that I hope others will try to replicate and scale it up. The school got no additional funding, so the learning gains were basically free. It was able to pay teachers six-figs because they increased avg. class size from 27 to 31, and ran leaner without as many wasteful administrators (middle managers). Everyone employed at that school did both teaching work and leadership/admin stuff, which probably made them feel more empowered and autonomous (key drivers of job satisfaction).

Poor performers did not get the high salary for long; contracts were not renewed for about 1/3 of teachers, and fresh talent was brought in. This motivated teachers to give high effort and maximize their skills/career development. In other words, the ones that could... they earned their pay. And students benefited in the process. Obviously this was only possible at a non-union charter school. Such a program may not "fix" bad inner-city teachers, but at least it has a better chance to retain the good ones (teacher turnover is abysmal in high-needs schools for obvious reasons), and provide motivation for those in between. If we want professional performance, it's not a huge stretch to start treating teachers like professionals. This is especially impactful in high-cost-of-living areas like NYC.

Ethics and young people

NPR had some good stories about this today.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/07/14/331346884/for-most-kids-nice-finishes-last

Should universities consider student EQ in admissions, not just the typical achievements? Those skills can be important for career and life success too, not to mention better leaders and a healthier society. As my favorite president Teddy R said, "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society" (emphasis mine).

This comes on the heels of a $7B federal fine on Citi for all sorts of professional/ethical violations associated with its MBS business (as usual, no one goes to jail). The fine is a tax-write off and about 7 months of profits to Citi - hardly a trip to the woodshed.

---

What should it mean to "be a man"?

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/14/330183987/the-3-scariest-words-a-boy-can-hear

Charter school fraud in Philly

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137444337/what-happens-when-charter-schools-fail

Maybe some social services aren't designed for market competition and entrepreneurship, especially when they're funded by taxpayers with little public oversight, and run by former business sharks with minimal educational experience. I think charter schools can be a good innovation in certain circumstances, and of course there are plenty of problems with stagnant public schools, educational bureaucracies, and teacher unions.

But look at their logic: public schools are underperforming, so let's establish charter schools to pressure them to shape up, and act as a teaching lab to develop better methods. But charters are risky "nonprofit" ventures that are trying to win grants and other funding, so why would they share their successful practices with rivals? Like a new entrant into an industry, they are fighting like hell to survive and eventually dethrone the top dog. They are not there to make friends. And the more successful a charter is, the more funding it gets (which means nearby public schools are getting less, and per-pupil K-12 funding in the US is already criminally low), so that only increases the likelihood that the public schools will underperform. And if word gets out that the charter is good, parents of talented students may pluck them out of the public system in favor of the charters, creating a selection bias that further brain drains public schools. So it's pretty much a zero-sum game; there is no way charters can make publics better. But that's probably the point, and it's not a level playing field. Charter teachers are non-union (they are paid a bit more but forced to work longer hours, so their per-hour compensation is actually worse) and not fettered with as many rules, so that's almost like Bar-roid Bonds vs. me in the Home Run Derby. Plus it creates a rift and culture clash among educators - already one of the least respected professions in the US. Education needs to be collaborative, open, and trusting to be successful, and charters are an impediment to that (some may say unions are too, and they have a point).

Like we've seen in other parts of gov't, when free-market conservatives want to do away with some public program, they demonize and de-fund it. They say the program is a failure, and they create the negative conditions to fulfill that prophecy, instead of taking measures to prevent it. Maybe all this is part of the larger movement to destroy employee unions wherever they exist. Some charters have changed lives and put underserved students on a much better life path, but overall charters are about on par with publics and in some cases lagging behind. Just imagine how much better the public schools could have done with the additional resources wasted on sub-par or corrupt charters. As we all know in business and in research, most attempts end in failure. So it's not like every charter is destined to be a gem, especially when it's run by corrupt people.

In the greater Philly area, 19 of 74 charter schools are under federal investigation for improprieties. And that percentage may be fairly uniform across the nation (CA, OH, and TX have also launched recent investigations). Charters are designed to be free of regulation (but from our experiences with Wall Street and energy, we know how that goes), and there are 7 full-time employees tasked with monitoring ALL of the Philly charters (soon to be 4 due to city budget cuts, of course). Most of the problems are abuse of funds, COI, and nepotism. Like corporations, CEOs hire friendly boards who rubber-stamp ludicrous pay raises (as much as $1M for some execs) and hirings of unqualified buddies. One CEO set up his school in buildings he owned, making the charter pay inflated rent directly to him. Another director also owned the school's vending machines. His team would buy discount junk food and soda and hike up the prices to the students. Well, maybe the corruption isn't actually hurting anyone? In another school, looting by the leaders caused the special ed program to be underfunded. When parents complained to the trustees, they basically told them to piss off. 

Profits are getting in the way of education. I hope people will wake up and recognize the risk of charters as being just another pro-business scheme to undermine the public sector and embezzle precious scarce resources. Maybe charters can work and make education better, but if so, then we shouldn't compromise that potential by tolerating bad charters and improper conduct.

Central Falls, RI mass teacher firings and Obama's dumbass response

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak.” - President Obama on the AIG bonuses, March 2009

"If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn't show signs of improvement, then there's got to be a sense of accountability. And that's what happened in Rhode Island last week at a chronically troubled school." - President Obama, March 2010

A very poor, half-Latino community in Rhode Island called Central Falls has a very bad education record. In this "No Child Left Behind (NCLB)" era of standardized testing being the final word and punishment for poor performance being the bureaucrats' go-to play, the district administration decided to fire 93% of the teachers and staff in accordance with the generic "restructuring" strategy of NCLB. We on this email list don't even have education degrees, and we probably already realize that this is problematic, if not completely moronic and traumatic for the students.

Yet Obama and his education secretary and Chicago hanger-on, Arne Duncan, praised it. Obama claimed that he likes to know what he's talking about before he speaks. Yeah, I guess that showed when he called the cop's actions "stupid" in the arrest of his Harvard professor and hothead pal Henry Louis Gates, without knowing a single detail about the case. And now with the Rhode Island issue, he is also being a dumbass douchebag, for lack of a better description. 

"[The Central Falls administrators are] showing courage and doing the right thing for kids." - Arne Duncan, March 2010

Yep, it sure shows courage when the captain of the ship sacrifices the seamen to the pirates and keeps the one lifeboat for himself. If anything, the Central Falls administrators should fire THEMSELVES, and Obama/Duncan should have called for that. Do the angry Toyota customers blame the assembly line workers who were instructed to put shitty parts into the vehicles, or do they blame the careless designers who cut corners and the arrogant execs who were tone-deaf to early complaints? Central Falls was a tragedy for years, and the admins (the ones with the fancy degrees, higher pay, and less stress than those lazy unionized teachers) failed to show leadership and execute reforms. The buck stops where? Teachers can only do so much, even the most heroic of them. Education solutions should be top-down for best effect. But I guess our president can't wrap his brain around that.

Second, how the hell can you produce great education results overnight in such a community? If a basketball coach gets a bunch of guys like me, and his boss expects a winning season, what do you think will happen? He won't deliver and he'll be fired. I don't care if it's Phil Jackson, but he won't turn me into LeBron, or even an above-average player, because of my limitations (physical and economic - I have a job so I can't practice hoops and work out 5 hours a day to get better). But maybe Phil taught me a lot of good stuff and did make me a vastly improved player, but I'm still not up to the standards imposed by outsiders. Phil did a great job, but still gets fired. How does that make sense?

Central Falls is a tough place to grow up. The ratio of single-parent to traditional family households is 2:3. 25% of families live below the poverty line, with a median income of $26k. 40% of kids live in poverty, and 40% of the population are Latinos who don't speak English at home. If you sent the Eton faculty to Central Falls, do you think they could dramatically improve graduation rates in a couple years? We all know that kids can't learn if their bellies are aching and they are fatigued/troubled by issues at home. We know that it's harder for kids to learn if their parents are uneducated, poor, and working long hours. We can't expect miracles. If Obama, Duncan, et al. really cared about those kids, they would increase social welfare programs for them and their families, and invest in better teaching materials. Swap the students at Harvard and Kabul University for a decade, and we'll see which performs better. America has gutted its public school systems to balance budgets and pay corporate tax breaks, and now we're outraged that our schools suck and our kids are struggling? We (or should I say the Boomers) made our bed, and now we must lay in it. Yes of course bloated teacher/union concessions have contributed in some cases, but "charter schools" competition isn't the answer either. According to former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch, a national study showed that only 17% of charter schools outperformed comparable local public schools, and quite a few were worse. Education is supposed to be collaborative and supportive. It's lunacy to pit schools and teachers against each other, hoarding trade secrets to compete for students, tenure, and funding. Yes it's important to improve efficiency and accountability, but education doesn't lend itself to traditional business performance metrics. Main Street isn't Wall Street, and I don't want to live here if the two become indistinguishable. "Marketizing" our education system is not the answer. Some government services shouldn't be privatized, like social security and the military (oops, I forgot about Blackwater and Boeing). Wake up, Obama.

Even though Central Fall's graduation rate is 48% and only 7% of 11th graders could pass the state math exam, some teachers are doing a good job. This is obvious because students wept and protested when they heard the news. Kids aren't dumb, even if they can't do long division. They know that it won't help to fire the whole lot and replace them with ambitious newcomers. Even if the new crop is excellent, they will be hampered by job pressure because they know they could be fired too if scores don't go up. By firing those teachers, they destroyed decades of cumulative community and education wisdom. And those teachers may be jaded and unwilling to return, even if the admin changes its mind. Like a nasty lockout or strike in pro sports, it could take a decade (or never) to repair the damage and loss of community trust. What are those standardized test scores worth anyway? Maybe the Central Falls math teachers instructed their students with techniques that are not represented on the exam. Other schools and teachers, fearful for their jobs/funding, just help their students "master the test" (or just make the tests easier!), without really becoming skilled in the subject. Their goal is high scores, not pure understanding and thinking. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) investigated a subset of students who had 90% passing rates on their state reading exams. But by NAEP's metrics, only 20-30% of those same students read proficiently. There have been many cases of teachers caught cheating to help their students get higher scores. That should be evidence enough to show that NCLB is failing in its purpose.

The admins were not total tyrants. They gave them a chance: they requested that the Central Falls faculty increase instruction time, training, and tutoring without much additional compensation. The teachers' union refused, so the admin decided to fire them. That is not good management, and Obama/Duncan shouldn't have endorsed it. Maybe the teachers were being unreasonable, but a skilled leader can still work with them and achieve something positive. What if Nixon walked out on Mao at the first sign of resistance? Then he would have been like Congress. Restructuring the faculty won't work either. All of us working people know that reorganizations are terribly disruptive. Even a bunch of weak employees are preferable in the short term to a total purge. Weak employees still know stuff and can maintain the vital operations. When you get rid of them, who is doing the work in the meantime? Substitute teachers? Yes we should wean out poor performers, but gradually and sensitively, or the admin might create tensions and resentment among the new and remaining staff. All of this is management 101, which is why the management are the ones who need the pink slips. 

And Obama's guy Duncan is one to talk about education reform. His record in Chicago is decent but far from stellar. Yes he inherited a Chicago system that was among the nation's worst, but Chicago's math improvement rate (as evaluated by the NAEP) lagged behind many other cities of comparable size and demographics (in some cases, even behind DC and dysfunctional LAUSD that needed to be taken over by the mayor for a time). Duncan played around with performance pay, charter schools, closing bad schools, and mass firings, with inconsistent results. But it's not like he turned poop into gold over there. Plus, many of the test score gains that Duncan brags about were actually due to relaxed test standards, not improved knowledge. Half of Chicago kids still don't graduate in normal time (even though passing criteria was relaxed).

"There's been this rhetoric about dramatic gains, dramatic success, that we have to replicate this model because of its dramatic success," said Julie Woestehoff of the advocacy group Parents United for Responsible Education. "And here in Chicago, we're looking at these schools and going, 'Uh . . . ' "

What does that say about Obama for picking an inner-circle Chicago boy for a crucial job when better alternatives were available? I've had about all I can take of this "change stuff", and he still has three years to go.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/obamas-unfortunate-comments-on.html?wprss=answer-sheet
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124316925
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124227796
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124209100
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/28/AR2009122802368.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Falls,_Rhode_Island#Demographics
http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Obama_Child_Left_Behind/

More on education

Thanks for your responses, guys. To address your points:

Few countries can match America on its diversity and acceptance of diversity, which is a national strength for us I think. But it carries a cost as you alluded to - accommodating so many diverse people. Though of course the government has no obligation to do that beyond the mandates of law, which can be open to interpretation. Maybe there is such thing as "diversity overkill"? I really don't see why objective subjects like math and science shouldn't be taught near-identically across the nation for the 90% of students who fit the "normal" category. I know state's rights and all that, but name me one state that wouldn't like to save on education costs. And even primary-level language, PE, and history studies don't really need to be customized. But instead, we have different districts buying different textbooks and preparing students for different standardized tests at the end of the year, which contributes to waste. And that waste is not due to America's size vs. Finland, but a bureaucratic choice.

Surely we need to tailor teaching to special-needs or non-English speaking kids, but those are a minority in most communities. Shouldn't it be like group health insurance? The majority healthy people pay a little into the program and are mostly left alone, so more resources can be devoted to the sick. But as A said, the poverty issue does the exact opposite. The healthy get more care while the sick are left to get sicker. In Finland, it seems common that higher-performing students finish their in-class assignments faster, and then offer or are instructed to help their struggling peers. Maybe we could see more of that in America, instead of the "every person for him/herself" mentality. The wealth gap here is much larger, but there are still poor people in Finland and Japan. Maybe they have a hard time going to college too, but clearly they have a better chance at a decently comfortable, productive life than poor, marginalized Americans.

A, are you sure that Asian nations filter out poorly-performing schools when they make their national test performance measurements? The WSJ study data was collected by OECD, a 30-nation consortium and Paris-based think tank promoting democracy and free markets. As far as I can see online, there have been no criticisms of the PISA test and data collection methods, apart from wealthy Luxembourg, which complained that the relatively low scores by its students were the result of the test not being administered in that nation's most popular language, Luxembourgish. If Asian states or others are skewing their results, shouldn't the other countries and OECD leadership have an interest in calling them out on it? But I suspect that the top students in all the OECD nations score similarly, as well as the worst students. As Jared Diamond said in Guns, Germs, and Steel, geniuses pop up at a relatively similar frequency across ethnicities, but it takes a good social system to recognize them and allow them to maximize their potential. But you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the education system by removing the outliers and looking at the average students. And clearly the average Yank under-performs. Poverty and education system both play a role, but I agree that poverty is a stronger factor.

Yes as M said, it's not like every European works 10 hrs/wk less than every Yank. Companies and job titles make a difference. But in general, the European commute is shorter, Europeans busy themselves with fewer "activities" for their kids, Europeans have more vacation time (6-8 wks vs. 2-4 here), watch less TV, and probably do spend less time in the office on average. They also don't have to worry as much about making extra money to pay for health care, child day care, college, and retirement, since much of that is state-provided (a fair trade for 10-20% higher income taxes?). Growth rates in the big EU states have generally been lower than America's, and their unemployment is higher. They're not keeping up with us, but they're not so far behind either. And look at the price we pay in stress and time to get that extra 2% ahead of Europe. But it's not like Europe is Utopia; they are in recession too (maybe their banks are in worse trouble than ours) and they face the same problems that we do (immigration, aging population, rising costs of services/energy). But if both of our cultures are unsustainable and eventually go broke, at least the Europeans reinvested their money on improving quality of life for citizens for as long as they could, while we spent it on foreign wars and corporate profits.

-------

Well, the main thing isn't that Asians purposefully weed out stupid kids from taking the test. The key difference is that Asian kids that have special needs (developmentally disabled, kids who don't speak the local language at home, etc) aren't accommodated at schools. Call it culture, whatever, but Asian societies generally aren't very sympathetic or accommodating to kids that have some form of a disability that prevents them from learning (even stuff like dyslexia). These kids, obviously, tend to do terrible on tests, but in the US we test these types of students as well 'normal' students.

So it's not like they are trying to rig the test results, but the kinds of kids that the US goes out of our way to include in our educational system (even, to be a bit un-PC, crack babies and the like) just don't show up in their Asian equivalents. I'm not real sure how it works in Europe, but you'd have to look at to whom they give the test (do they exclude those outside of normal schooling or not?).

And of course it doesn't take into account the fact that American schools, compared to their Asian equivalents, tend to be much better at developing critical thinking skills. Most Asian educational systems emphasize rote memorization. Not that we're all that great at it, but Asian schools are notorious for being all about memorizing mathematical formulas and passages out of literature without critically assessing what they are learning.

So I'm hardly saying that the US is an educational paradise - I'm in complete agreement about standardization; it's really stupid to have all of this reduplicated effort to develop basic curriculum (and of course gives the fundies a chance to put in their nonsense), and schools in areas with endemic poverty that are underfunded are in really bad shape.

But it isn't clear that these tests that are given out are really that comparable across systems nor does it account for tests of how well it preps you for later success, which is one of the main criticisms of No Child Left Behind; that we are gunning for Asian-like increases in test scores, but what are we really gaining to get there? On the other hand, I think we do have to introduce some accountability into the classrooms; I think the majority of teachers are probably pulling their weight, but we've got to have some way of punishing those that are deadweight. I've read some literature that has suggested that maybe we should use evaluations by principals, but that brings in all of the political and petty bullshit drama that goes on in the workplace, so it's not a clear win either. Maybe some combo? It's a tough issue...

--------

That's very descriptive, and I agree with your points.

I think it's unfortunate that some Asian and other families consider learning disabilities to be "shameful". They might prefer to hide it and make the kid "tough it out", rather than seek out special assistance. Or maybe the state doesn't have much to provide in those areas. But on the flipside, learning disabilities are grossly overdiagnosed and overmedicated in the US, maybe other places too. Now there's a syndrome for everything. It's never the fault of parenting of course. My little angel is sick and has special needs! It's almost a badge of honor to claim to have some learning challenge (Bush with dyslexia). Surely some drug companies, doctors, and DTC advertising are partly to blame for this. Sorry to be un-PC also, but there is such a thing as lazy, stupid, unmotivated, and unfocused (both parents and students). Some cases are real of course, and some steps can be taken to give the kid a better chance at success. 30 years ago, there was no such thing as ADHD, and now the APA estimates that up to 15% of young people may be receiving some sort of treatment for it. Give me a break; maybe that figure should be at 5% at most. Kids are usually excitable, but that doesn't mean they're disabled. They have to be TAUGHT to behave and concentrate. Yet with all the added awareness and treatments now, have nationwide test scores changed much? In fact, an investigation in AUS showed that autism was being overdiagnosed among students in order to gain more education funding. Sad. All these drugs just keep kids SEDATED so they are more easily controlled by irresponsible adults, but the side-effects can be catastrophic (suicides among Prozac and Paxil-taking youth, etc.). And who knows what the long-term effects will be? We need more time to collect the data, but by then these kids will have grown up in an environment that tolerates or promotes substance abuse as first response to "fix" problems.

http://psycport.com/stories/krdigital_2004_06_08_eng-krdigital_eng-krdigital_065551_6431782967861404803.xml.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24643013-5003426,00.html
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/mentalhealth/a/psymeds_suicide.htm

I see what you mean about critical thinking. "Critical thinking" is subjective though, and probably only the best 10% of US schools/teachers even start to cultivate that, but it's still better than "conform and work hard like robots" Asian schools. I do appreciate that some US schools push for creative outlets like senior project, fiction writing, internships/research, group entrepreneurial contests, etc. that other nations might not. However, creativity and self-expression are less useful if a student doesn't have solid fundamentals first. I'd rather have a robot who knows his/her stuff decently but will never be a visionary, rather than an empowered, opinionated "free thinker" who might come up with interesting ideas that are unfortunately based on ignorant assumptions and superficiality (a.k.a. a bullshitter). We have enough of those in America. Plus for many companies and nations in history, creative visionary people are only 10% of the labor force at most, and the rest are robot-like workers. I can't argue if that is a good or bad model, but it's the prevalent model so far for humanty. I think the world and America might benefit more from a surge in comprehension than a surge in creativity.

However, that is probably a factor why East Asians are one of the most educated and highest-earning groups in the US, yet probably the least represented in politics and top-level corporate management. Jerry Yang just bit the dust, but at least South Asians have a governor in LA and a CEO of Citi, to name a few. So even though US-born Asians didn't attend Asian schools, somehow those cultural traditions persist? Well, no point in conducting an exercise in stereotypes.

But as you said, standardized test scores in school are limited data, and not very predictive of future career success. However, they do open doors for higher education, which of course is correlated with career earning power. More teacher accountability would help a lot as you said, though the unions and bureaucracy are tough negotiating partners. Today in France many teachers are on strike due to proposed head count reductions. It has been a political pissing match for decades. Conservative Sarkozy spoke badly of teachers he didn't think were pulling their weight, though 54% of France supported the strike. And Obama is also in a pickle between teacher unions and education administrators over how to balance reforms/accountability, merit-based pay, tenure, firings, smarter testing, and whatnot. But that is another can of worms.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145843/output/print