THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I have a few Finnish friends - engineers, mostly, since it would be difficult for them to get visas to come to the US otherwise.  They’re skeptical of the Finnish system - they believe it promotes mediocrity.  And I believe Finland has one of the highest percentages of citizens living abroad in the OECD. 

This does not contradict the findings above - if you bring up the bottom 95% of your students, your mean will obviously improve.

I haven’t done a systematic study of this, but I remain convinced that the top end of the American school system (99th percentile or even 97+) is the most challenging of its kind in the world.  Certainly the Manitoba high school system did not compare to it

//Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not look and adapt the successful education system in Finland?  And, if Finland offers too differing a contrast, why not look toward Canada?//

Two-word answer: American exceptionalism. Longer answer: our national mythology teaches us that we are superior to other nations in every respect, and that we have nothing to learn from anyone else. Remember the apoplexy a few years ago when Justice Kennedy dared to suggest that American jurists should consider the views of their peers around the world? Consider why conservatives constantly rail against “European-style medicine, economics,” etc. They understand that a large, largely isolated country like ours is very inward-looking and skeptical of foreign solutions.

It would be just as easy for PISA to release the standard deviations of the scores so we can figure this out easily enough for the 15-yr olds.  I’m going to presume that because the mean score is so much lower in USA than Finland, that the spread required to have the top end students (as 15-yr olds) higher in USA than Finland to be extremely unlikely.

It is very possible, if not probable, that the top-end students in USA (in college) is better than average, if not at the very top.  (Especially since they attract the brighter foreign minds.)

Anyway, it’s possible that the education system for adults is better in USA.  But, my focus, as the focus of the Secretary of Education and all these articles we read, is on non-adults.

If the requirement that the adult education in USA is that it continues with the current non-adult education (Darwinian survivial of the fittest, lots of children left behind, pressure, dropouts, etc, etc), then the Secretary should admit this.

HOWEVER, I presume that more important than having the best college system is that it does not come at the expense of the children left behind.  If the result of making sure that the lower-end students be given an opportunity is that the top-end students are less competitive, then so be it.

Once the public agrees as to the prime objective here (as opposed to the utopian objective of “all"), the path would be clearer.

Having experienced both education systems, I personally wouldn’t point to Canada for guidance on math education. 

This may have changed, but as recently as ten years ago, it was rare for schools to offer algebra in grade 8, whereas it is commonly available (in better school districts in the US.) And taking algebra in 7th grade, which is not uncommon in the US (3-5 pct of students?) doesn’t happen at all in Canada.  I went to a school that offered the IB diploma and none of us took anything other than the lowest level of math offered - the higher levels were for Europe, where kids do learn more math by the same age.

On a slightly different note, I saw something recently about how Japan was trying to get 10% of its population to study math, science or engineering at the graduate level.  The piece was in the Toronto Star and noted that the comparable rate in the US and Canada was around 0.5%. 

It seems to me that we don’t have an economy that can support that level of math education.  I know the implication is that more education = more innovation = more jobs, but 10% seems unsustainable…

"If the result of making sure that the lower-end students be given an opportunity is that the top-end students are less competitive, then so be it.”

I think this is a little muddled and may not be exactly what you meant, but I’ll take it as is.

I know you are not disagreeing, but I see no evidence that having the best higher education requires having a sub-par early education.  That said, if we take that assumption as true, I cannot agree with you that it is more important to have “everyone” raised up at the expense of lowering the ceiling.  As a country, the ceiling is the most important thing.  Everyone benefits (in most cases the entire world benefits, not just the US) from the inventive activities of our (world-wide) “best and brightest.”

There may well be social inequities inherent in such a system, but if so those inequities need independent remedy.  I repeat again, for absolute clarity, that I see no evidence that high-ceiling is causally connected to low-mean and therefor I would continue to seek out systemic solutions to our early education issues.  But I would reject your CBA quoted above.

*I graduated high school in 2001*

From what I remember going through HS is that a good portion of students (25+%) do not want to be there to learn.  For this population it is either social hour or a means to play sports.  There is another group of students (15-20%) who should not have attended a traditional HS, but a vocational school instead.

When I was in school the tech school in the area was thought of as a place to send the delinquents.  That mentality has come around fully and they are now in a position to reject students because they have too many applicants.  For that I applaud the entire staff of the school.

As for the students who do not really want to learn, I think it is going to be very difficult to develop an education system that would change the students mind set.  It is more of a cultural problem than an educational system problem.

I think the Finns are onto something by removing athletics and social functions from the school environment and forcing those things to take place outside of school as opposed to within its walls.

I think the standard deviations would shed some interesting light on the matter.

Steve/6:

Competitive hockey is played entirely outside of school in Canada (aside from one or two high schools I can think of that have junior teams.) This setup has zero positive effect on high school graduation rates or attentiveness in school.

Steve/6: “It is more of a cultural problem than an educational system problem.”

I think that’s very true. The educational system definitely needs some work, but there are a lot of factors that make it hard to change things. Too many to list, including: parents who lack basic parenting skills (i.e. not reading to their children or encouraging development of basic cognitive skills); schools full of so many troubled kids that it’s almost impossible to learn; and as Steve noted, a culture that often discourages a desire to learn.

The WSJ article puts an emphasis on teacher quality and makes it sound like one of the reasons for high quality is that being a teacher is a prestigious job in Finland. That’s certainly not the case in the US. I know plenty of teachers who feel like most people look down on their career choice. There’s no simple way to change public perception about the teaching profession. Even if there is, it will likely take decades to flush all the “bad” teachers out of the system.

Education is a very complex issue.

I am glad that there is at least some discussion about education.  We need to stop putting so much time, attention, and energy on jobs, the economy, and taxes, and focus on education.

Ultimately there are only two things that create a prosperous society: One, natural resources, and there isn’t much you can do about it - you either have it or you don’t, and the problem with that is that prosperity through owning natural resources is mostly at someone else’s expense and does not produce any “net” prosperity, and two, technology and education (I lump them together).

If we forget about that, no matter what we do for our economy, we will never be prosperous again…

@MGL / #9

I’m not sure what you mean. Through comparative advantage, gains through trade can make life better for both parties, even if one can produce goods using fewer resources than another.

Hong Kong is a good example. They have few natural resources, yet have grown and developed quickly through free trade.

Also, I don’t think it makes sense to say we should put less time on “jobs, the economy, and taxes”.

Economics is simply the study of the most efficient allocation of scarce resources in light of unlimited demand. Jobs and education are inputs to consumption, and all depend on this efficient allocation. Taxes also greatly affect its outcome.

The sound application of economics that allows all of this to function.

I don’t know what you mean by “gains through trade.” I am not much interested in any one society, including my own, prospering at the expense of someone else, if that is what you mean.

What I meant by putting less time and energy into “the other stuff” is simply that if we don’t focus on education and technology, there is very little a country/society can do to produce or create prosperity.  The ONLY thing that creates net prosperity (for the world) is technology and efficient use of resources.  That is it.  Advancing technologically and knowing how to efficiently use resources requires education.

Correct economic principles, taxation, etc, helps with efficient use of resources but without technology and education, there is a limit to the amount a country can prosper.  There is no such thing as a prosperous country that is not well-educated or has some valuable natural resource.  And of course the latter does not guarantee prosperity for the people in the country if they are not educated and they do not have a benevolent or democratic government, as well as the fact that having valuable natural resources to trade for other goods and services produces no net prosperity in the world.

The equivalent in baseball would be a team that is -30 runs in expected offensive lwts with an expected ERA of 5.00.  No matter how well and efficient the team is run, it is not likely to win many games.

What do you think prosperity is and how do you think it is created?  Prosperity is having a nice car, house, phone, arts and sciences, good medical care, etc. How do you think that gets created when there are only 40 work hours per week per person no matter who you are or where you live?  Technology.  That is it.  Period.  Nothing else.  And how do you think technology gets advanced?  Education.  That is it. Period. 

Trade, taxation, economy, etc. is gravy. It is how you run the baseball team.  First and foremost you need talent.  Without that you have nothing.  If we forget about advancing education and technology in this country, we will eventually become a third-world nation.  There is no doubt about that.

*I just graduated from HS 11 months ago*

In my opinion it is not a resources problem, it is a commitment problem on the part of communities. My hometown is a pretty wealthy area with one of the best public schools in the state in terms of test scores, college acceptances, etc,. The town right next to me is just as well-off, but their school system is a piece of sh!t. They have the same resources, but their students just don’t do as well. The only thing I can think of is a community standard that is higher in my town than in theirs.

New technology is a huge waste of time. We spent tens of thousands of dollars buying “smartboards” the last two years. I’ve never had a teacher that knew how to use it. I’m a teenager in a digital age and I don’t even know how to use it.

Schools in America are being run like businesses. Do some googling for articles about the NYC school system, specifically on Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg. My mom is an NYC elementary school teacher, she could go on for hours about this issue.

Education in this country is primarily to condition kids to be good citizens, or at least keep them off the streets, and to accept what they are told by authority figures, and not think for themselves.  I call it the dumbing down and conditioning of America.  It is by design, not accident. Kids acting as kids get diagnosed with ADD and given drugs like Ritalin. 

Teaching with Powerpoint is a joke.  Powerpoint is for dummies, and is used to present information in a superficial manner to your boss or clients so they can not figure out how you are misleading them.

As David Rockefeller said, we do not need more thinkers in this country, we need more workers.  This said as the de-industrialization of America began in the 70’s, so presumably he meant more illegal immigrants which increased from this period.

If more people could go to Asia and look at the infrastructure and economic activity there, then the myth of Americas superiority would quickly vaporize.  I remark to my wife from time to time during my visits home how the US is getting to look like a 3rd world country in comparison.  Its almost unheard of where I live for any area to be without high speed internet access, but this seems to be quite common in the US, and the cost if available is 3-4 times higher in the US.

Today kids graduate from college loaded in debt (and their parents), which must be paid or future earnings will be garnished. They essentially become wage slaves as many work in jobs requiring nothing more than a decent high school education, or jobs serving fries and handling bed pans.

Forty years ago we landed on the moon.  Today we would have to ask China for help to get back since much of our manufacturing base has been exported to China and elsewhere in Asia, and the young are not taught these skills so even if we wanted to bring back the manufacturing, skilled labour and engineers would be in short supply.

Forty years ago a family of 8 could be supported by 1 middle class worker (father), while the mother stayed home to take care of the kids, and employer provided health benefits and pensions were the norm.

Today, kids have to be left in school or day care until one of the parents comes home, and a typical middle class family of 4 has difficulty making ends meet with both parents working full time, and it is not uncommon for both to be without any employer provided health benefits, requiring them to pay over 12,000 dollars a year for family insurance. 

Health care is much more affordable in many countries due to government insurance, as is education, and government labour laws protect workers and require paid sick leave, paid vacations, OT, etc.  Our laws pale by comparison.

Job security is a thing of the past given Globalization and Free Trade encourage companies to move operations out of the US in search of cheaper labour, and tax laws encourage this as well. 

Japanese and Europeans have protected their manufacturing base a bit better with wacky regulations and test requirements that would drive you insane.  US regulations are a joke and facilitate the ease of imports which can be sold in the US.

These other issues are all connected with the problems of the educational system.  Looking at the educational system in isolation is like trying to figure out why HR’s are much more prevalent and focusing on steroids while ignoring other possible factors like parks, balls, etc.

What’s the economic situation in Finland?  Do they have as many poor communities as the US?  What importance do political leaders and parents give to education (not just superficially)?  As someone who taught high school math for three years, it’s awfully tough to find successful kids coming from poor homes with parents who sit in front of the tv every night.  Many teachers in the US are actually both parents and academic teachers.

It is important to remember that the results of this study is only on the accomplishments of 15-yr olds (meaning their experiences in life from birth to that point).  That does not necessarily translate any further than that, especially considering that USA has the benefit of “brain gain” from other countries (I presume there are more Indians, Chinese, Canadians, Filipinos, etc that come to USA than there are Americans that go there).

It could very well be that the ideal system (for the society as a whole) is what USA has to offer.  And that means alot of children left behind.  Darwin would be proud.

My point is that these “more, more, more” that the Secretary of Education may as well be just wishful thinking, as it sounds exactly like what middle management in corporate america is all about: they have all the answers, and their solution always involves themselves as the pivotal role in the wheel.

***

My pet theory is that students in USA are all a bunch of little lawyers who have the tacit approval of mommy and daddy to do whatever they want (either in support or disinterest), while mommy and daddy care mostly about their own kids at the expense of others.

MGL #9:

Actually, there is a long body of economic literature pointing out that countries with more natural resources tend to have lower economic growth and less prosperity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

I treat the the idea that teachers must have a masters degree the same way that I hold the idea that sabermetricians must have a Ph.D.

Except the sabermetricians with PhD are not the ones who get their readers with a PISA score of 560 (Andy excluded).

Since Finland has demonstrated that they have the highest scores in the world among their students, it would naturally be more likely that this is as a positive result of their teachers, and not in spite of their teachers having a master’s.

I would stack up the readers of this blog against any blog from anyone with a master’s when it comes to understanding baseball.

Imagine how much more I’d know about baseball if you got your Masters, then!

MGL, In general I agree with you that education is pretty important.  But I don’t think it’s the most important. If you want to see what a great math/engineering based education system plus natural resources alone can do for you look at the former Soviet Union (before it fell apart).  Awesome! They had great math and science. They had huge natural resources. They had 100% literacy, even in places like Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.  You couldn’t beat it …, unless you were anywhere else in the developed world. Education by itself is no good.  You need good governance before can get anything else worth having.  Tax and business policies are a big part of that.

I think if you looked at the distribution of results rather than the means you would find that the worst quarter in the US is pulling the average down (relative to other countries).  If we want to improve the average the easiest way is going to be to bring the lower 25% up closer to average.  But that’s going to require fixing much more than the educational system.

"But that’s going to require fixing much more than the educational system.”

That is my feeling as well.  I am not convinced the problem with education in the US middle-schools has very much to do with the education systems in place.

As an example, one of the oft cited problems is that localization of education is what creates disparity of education.  Rich localities have better funded schools and THEREFOR the education at those schools is better and the students there are THEREFOR unfairly advantaged (or more often this is stated as the children at the poor schools are unfairly disadvantaged).  I think this is a correlation vs. causation error. 

The children from poor localities have far more significant disadvantages than under funded schools.  IMO, “fixing” the schools (through better funding, though teachers with MAs, through regular testing and certification of teachers, etc.) will do very little to improve education.  If you want to improve education, you need to focus on reducing impoverishment.

I agree with Mr. Scott’s points above.  The U.S. tries to solve too many cultural and sociological issues at once through the guise of education.  It leads to the horrible overspending seen in many inner-city school districts like D.C. and Atlanta.  While education is a vital and necessary component of a society, it should not be the only or even main priority.  I do think a move to a more European-style education system where students with no ambitions for higher education should be allowed to focus on more technical trade schools as an example early in life.  But that would force our politicians to publicly admit the American notion that all people have the same capacity to learn skills is not necessarily true.

I can’t speak for the education system as a whole, but I went to what would be considered good public schools and can best describe it as ‘tedious and padded.’

I agree with Steve. In my experience, students are usually poor at any level by choice, because they are lazy, because the entire culture is lazy. Legitimately stupid children are usually identified and are put into slower curriculum. I don’t understand how anyone benefits by having all the children in a slower curriculum; I can’t think of a single positive that extra coddling and padding of an already gentle standard learning curve will add.

“The idea is that bright students can help average ones without harming their own progress.”

I mean this is just wrong, both assumptions.  1- Students don’t help each other. 2- Again, how does further padding of a padded education not retard development?

To find an analog in baseball, it’s like forcing all prospects to follow a rigid, mandatory path through college and every level in the minors so that their peers can benefit.

Making educational improvements at the bottom of society requires a lot of hard work. The Harlem Children’s Zone has been very successful by taking a comprehensive approach to improving the lives of children in its community. Click my name for an interesting article; excerpt:

“the Zone starts with Baby College, nine weeks of parenting classes that focus on discipline and brain development. It continues with language-intensive prekindergarten, which feeds into a rigorous K-12 charter school with an extended day and an extended year. That academic “conveyor belt,” as Canada calls it, is supplemented by social programs: family counseling, a free health clinic, after-school tutoring, and a drop-in arts center for teenagers.”

Just from my personal suburban (silver-spoon edition) American public school education experience…

There was never really any emphasis on the process of learning/development of critical thinking. All the schoolwork and lessons revolved around getting good grades (or “marks” as Tango would put it ) on homework assignments and examinations (aka “results-based” teaching). Most of my peers didn’t learn how to even teach themselves from a book until they got to college and pretty much wasted a semester (academically) trying to figure it out.

I also agree that despite the industriousness that most of the parents seemed to have in the area I grew up in, there was a general laziness that most of the students shared, which I think, led to widespread cheating among the students, even to the point where my senior year physics class had about a 95 average on homework (copying off of the two guys who knew what they were doing), and thus preventing any of those students from failing.

Am I the only one that thinks fixing these huge education issues can’t possibly be done as long as a significant portion of the American population thinks “education” = teaching creationism in public schools?

Couple of questions:
1) In Finland are the teachers in a union?  How about Hong Kong and S.Korea?
2) In Finland, HK and SKorea, do the teachers get tenure after X years?
3) In Finland, HK and SKorea, do they have a large influx of poor immigrants from countries that do not speak the local language very well in their school system?

vr, Xei

Xei, from a quick Google:

Yes, Finland has a teachers’ union (http://www.oaj.fi).

Ditto HK ( The PTU is a trade union, a professional body, and a social concern group. Over 90% of Hong Kong teachers, from kindergartens to universities, are members of this union,which protects teachers’ rights and provides them with various welfare services.)

Not sure about S Korea.

xei/#27 - at least in Finland, the answer to your first two questions is yes. Click my name for a link.

“But Finland is also home to strong, politically powerful teachers’ unions. And tenure. And principals who complain tenure makes it too difficult to fire bad teachers.”

Also worth noting:

“What accounts for the prestige of the teaching profession in Finland? Every Finn has a pet theory, but my guess is that the historic lack of steep income inequality has something to do with it. Teachers in Finland make about what American teachers do, which is, of course, less than the income of Finnish doctors and lawyers. But there is not as large of a disparity between the salaries of various white-collar professionals in Finland as there is in the United States. That is changing, though, as Finland embraces more neo-liberal economic policies and its private sector expands.”

Re: PhD/Masters requirement

I treat the the idea that teachers must have a masters degree the same way that I hold the idea that sabermetricians must have a Ph.D.

But you know that’s a different situation. Requiring teachers to become “masters” in teaching will raise the quality of the teacher. The PhD’s that we occasionally rip on here have those degrees in other fields, like Economics or Math, not baseball.

If we required all sabermetricians to have PhDs in baseball, then the overall quality of research would increase--we wouldn’t have threads on here like the “ABSO-lutely not” thread.

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/abso_lutely_not/

Chiming in late, but here’s a few thoughts…

As someone who teaches college freshman and helps tutor high school students, I agree with Aaron B. that what a huge percentage of these kids are lacking are critical thinking skills.  Much of the time, if they are forced to think beyond a minute or two (or probably less than that), the shutters start to go down over their eyes.  Asked to analyze a short story or solve a logic problem, and they head to their computer to check what sparknotes has to say or to simply google it.  Critical thinking takes time and effort, and those are two things that students aren’t accustomed to.  And this isn’t a knock on technology or “kids today.” It just is what it is. 

A second point about having a masters in order to teach… Disclosure: I have two masters degrees (don’t ask).  I have friends who teach high school who have masters degrees.  I am surrounded by PhDs, etc.  And this by no means guarantees that they will be any good at teaching.  They may know a lot about their subject matter, but half the battle in the classroom is being able to communicate with a real live audience.  And there are way too many teachers out there who are horrible at it--call it communication deficits or personality problems or whatever.

To address the larger issue, part of me wishes that we’d find a better way to do things and then do that with next year’s first-graders--start the whole thing over from scratch, and if you’re in second grade or ninth grade, well, you’re going to learn the old way.  But what that new way is, I have no idea.

Dan/30: Why do you think forcing all sabermetricians to have a Ph.D. in sabermetrics would raise the quality of the work you see?

In that case, I wouldn’t be allowed to be here, and Tango wouldn’t be allowed to be here, and Bill James never would have existed. 

Same for teachers.  Some of the most gifted teachers, if you forced them to have a masters, would say, “f*** this, I’m going into engineering, where I only need a B.Sc.”

Re: Master’s degrees and such

Click name for a discussion with an economist on the results of various studies on American education.  His conclusion:  teacher quality matters a lot, but a master’s degree is a poor indicator of that quality. The cited paper from which that conclusion is drawn can be found here:

edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/files_det.asp?FileId=136

He said a PhD in baseball.

I think he was probably trying to exaggerate his point.  If there was real money to be made in this business by thousands of people, then his idea would be fine.

As a hobby, what we do is good enough, and better than what you get from most people anyway, PhD or otherwise.

Post 33 was marked for moderation and is now open.

My first question regarding any of these type of tests is: how well does it really measure what it purports to measure?

The discussion here implicitly assumes that the PISA test is an accurate measure… It may very well be, but I have seen plenty of cases where standardized tests don’t really do a good job of measuring intelligence (or aptitude or whatever), but instead measure test taking ability (or something else)…

@MGL / 11

I’m late to the debate, but when I say gains through trade I mean the net benefits that two parties create when they focus on producing what they can do best, then trading with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade

What Tango said. 

On the other hand, our (Canadian) government is cutting (already low) funding for scientific research.  This need not be emulated.