The Educated Society

This article was originally published in Society (May/June 2013, Vol. 50, Issue 3). The final publication is available at link.springer.com

The National Academy of Sciences’ (2007) report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, called for more scientific and technical innovation to maintain America’s economic growth and vitality. Countless other reports over the past few decades have all called for more science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education, culminating in President Obama’s “this is our generation’s sputnik moment” speech at the 2011 State of the Union. The more STEM knowledge students gain, the more prepared they will be for the 21st century knowledge-based economy, the thinking goes.

STEM jobs, however, account for a mere 5 % of all U.S. jobs, which suggest that prudent allocation of resources is a principle consideration. Do all students need STEM education or should it be focused primarily on the mathematically and scientifically inclined? Here, demographics may hold the key to such questions from which a 21st century education model should be based on.

The Importance of Demographics

Simply, demographics tell us what issues we are dealing with and what kind of society we are becoming. For instance, a higher population of immigrants suggests the need to increase bilingual education. A shrinking middle class precipitates growing inequality and radicalism. Graying baby boomers spurs higher government spending in Medicare. Thus, a better understanding of demographics helps us address employment opportunities and problems by matching supply with demand.

In the case of STEM education, policymakers can logically consider one of two strategies: The “quantitative” approach seeks just to expand the number of scientists and engineers by requiring compulsory STEM education for all students (i.e., providing some STEM for all); whereas the “qualitative” approach strives to optimize STEM development for only the mathematically and scientifically-inclined student segment. Researchers from The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (2010) believed that this “all STEM for some” approach is more feasible, efficient and equitable. Although education needs to produce certain skills to work in the information society, most students will not need calculus or physics knowledge for their work. Again, it’s a question of matching the supply and demand of skills.

Educators should to take a cue from other industries and learn to respect the inherent differences in their markets. Industries such as entertainment, food, and apparel develop targeted communications plans to consider the diverse inclinations, mindset, and values of specific demographics (such as ethnicity, gender, and age) in order to increase patronage. Advertisers in particular are widely known to cater to their “target audience,” oftentimes by collecting demographic and financial information from product warranties, banks, and credit card agencies.

Politicians likewise craft distinct messages that might target by geography (swing states), religion (the Christian vote), political view (Tea Party), lobbies (meat industry), and of course, ethnicity (the Hispanic vote) when running for public office. In this way, many industries recognize that groups are more receptive when you respect their distinctiveness and address their particular needs. It’s actually the most democratic approach.

However, this differentiated model has curiously eluded the education industry. Though it adjusts services for certain groups (e.g., special education students, bilingual students), education still primarily follows an outdated “one-size-fits-all” approach, ignoring vast differences, abilities, and interests. Forcing all students to take abstract subjects such as algebra may do more harm than good if they lead to sustained apathy and dropout; contextualizing mathematical reasoning would be a better solution. In the highly specialized world of the information society, educators must get to know their “target audience” and how to accommodate students’ varying abilities in order to optimize receptivity and potential. Only through this recognition will educators be able to develop students whose skills match employers’ demands.

Two interrelated demographic segments in particular illuminate the importance of the differentiated model and have critical implications for the 21st century knowledge-based economy: 1) The cognitive class; and 2) highly skilled immigrants, particularly those from Asia. In light of emerging research, the analysis of both groups reveals the folly of a standardized and homogenized education model, and attempts to shed light on a new educational paradigm.

The Cognitive Class

The cognitive class, also known as the intellectual class, the smart fraction, the creative class or the gifted & talented, is not a traditionally recognized demographic segment such as immigrants, Latinos, or women. In education for the 21st century knowledge economy, however, recognizing this group is critically important.

Research has shown that a person’s mental ability has a significant and positive relationship with income and educational attainment (Heckman et al. 2006; Ng et al. 2005; Scullin et al. 2000). On an individual level, it functions to open the doors of opportunity and to solve problems by increasing insight, foresight and rationality that result in proximal consequences like higher quality work and better health (Rindermann 2008; Rindermann and Thompson 2011) as well as social skills and emotional intelligence.

On an aggregate level, cognitive ability has an enor- mous impact on economic growth, according to an emerging class of economists and cognitive science re- searchers. Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) revealed three major insights in a seminal study that collected data from 81 countries: 1) national IQ correlated significantly with per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (r = .62); 2) IQ was similarly correlated with economic growth (r = .64); and 3) nations’ IQs differed widely, with East Asian countries like Japan (IQ = 105) and South Korea (106) scoring high, and sub-Saharan African countries like South Africa (72) and Ghana (71) scoring low.

Although Lynn and Vanhanen’s data drew wide scru- tiny for its methodological limitations and racial impli- cations, numerous studies have since confirmed the overall IQ-productivity relationship (e.g., Jones and Schneider 2010; Hunt and Wittman 2008; Hanushek and Woessmann 2009). Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) and Rindermann (2007) further reinforced the validity of national IQ by associating it with international tests such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), with an r ranging from .80 to .90. Apparently, mathematical, scientific, and verbal abilities are suitable proxies for IQ.

However, rather than focus on the average cognitive ability of a nation, several contemporaries have centered on the academic elite known as the cognitive class. Studies demonstrate that the IQ and test scores of those within the top ten percentile had a decisive effect on GDP and STEM achievement compared with national IQ (Gelade 2008; Rindermann and Thompson 2011). STEM achievement was determined by four indicators: 1) The number of patents per million; 2) Nobel Prizes in science related to population size; 3) the number of scientists and engineers per million; and 4) the rate of high-technology exports as a percentage of manufacturing exports.

In concrete terms, Rindermann and Thompson (2011) discovered that an increase of one IQ point per person in the intellectual class raises average per capita GDP by US $468 compared with only $229 by those from the mean group. Assuming that 5 % of the 55 million pubic school students are considered gifted and talented (G&T), then each additional increase in IQ points for the G&T students would add almost $1.3 billion to the GDP. From another perspective, Hanushek and Woessmann’s (2009) calculations suggested that the top 5 % of students who increased their international scores by ten percentage points would have over four times greater impact on a nation’s annual economic growth compared with those at the basic literacy level (1.3 vs. 0.3 percentage point annual growth, respectively).

Taken together, these studies suggest that the current lack of investment in academically high-potential students, particularly in the STEM fields, will have consequences for the U.S. economy. NCLB’s current focus on low-achievers is admirable but outdated in a global and technological world. More resources are needed to accurately identify and rigorously develop academically high potential students, especially those who may have certain disadvantages such as a language barrier.

Highly Skilled Immigrants: H-1B Visa Program, Patent Rates, and Start-ups

Immigrants who have shown high cognitive abilities, particularly those with technical STEM skills, can significantly im- pact America’s knowledge-based economy. No program in the U.S. is more indicative of the federal push for 21st century STEM skills than the H-1B visa program, authorized under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1990 to increase the inflow of highly skilled “guest workers” from abroad.

The questionable design of the program, however, frus- trates private employers who need far more skilled workers than the program supplies. Firms are limited to 85,000 visas per year despite the fact that they comprise 90 % of all requests in 2010–2011 (universities, which comprise only 10 %, remain uncapped). The annual supply of visas is usually exhausted in months or even weeks; in pre- recession 2007, it took only 2 days (see Table 1). Jilted employers have no choice but to wait until the following year to reapply. As a result, researchers at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute (2012) have urged policymakers to create a nonpartisan H-1B advisory panel that can recommend annual adjustments to the cap level based on: 1) labor market conditions to identify skills short- ages; and 2) demographic needs that address local demand.

Patenting rates are another economic indicator of STEM innovation. Highly skilled foreign inventors are increasingly playing crucial roles in cutting-edge research (particularly those in American universities) by developing groundbreaking products and services that create jobs for American workers. A revealing report by the Partnership for a New American Economy (2012) found that over three-quarters of STEM-related patents awarded to the top ten patent-producing universities in 2011 had foreign-born inventors. Among all institutions, foreign-created patents increased 337 % from 1998 to 2006 (7.6 % to 26 %, respectively) (Wadhwa et al. 2007a). Most of them originated from California by far, followed by Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Texas. No doubt economically vibrant metropolitan areas and renowned universities both play a large role.

Hand in hand with immigrants’ patent contribution in America is their entrepreneurial presence. From 1995 to 2005, foreigners founded one-quarter of all U.S. engineering and technology companies; in Silicon Valley, it was over half (Wadhwa et al. 2007b). When counting all senior man- agement, the proportion was even higher. The largest percentage of these immigrant-founded start-ups was specifically in semiconductors (35 %), followed by computers/communications (32 %), software (28 %), innovation/manufacturing-related services (which included electronics, computer and hardware design and engineering services) (26 %), and bioscience (20 %); see Fig. 1. Based on these figures, it is clear that immigrants’ entrepreneurial involvement in the STEM fields is likely to trend upward in the foreseeable future.

Fig. 1 Immigrant Breakdown of Immigrant Founded Companies. Note: Key Founder refers to President/Chief Executive Officer or the head of development/Chief Technology Officer. Source: Wadhwa et al. (2007b)

The biggest obstacle, apparently, is that current immigration policies make it difficult for highly skilled knowledge workers to secure work in the U.S. after they get degrees. One such policy is the aforementioned restriction on the H-1B visas, influenced largely by critics who fear the loss of American jobs to foreigners. Yet emerging research confirms that highly skilled foreigners actually support American jobs. For example, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Partnership for a New American Economy (2011) found that every additional foreign-born worker in STEM fields with advanced degrees from a U.S. institution is associated with an additional 2.62 American jobs. Kerr and Lincoln (2010) discovered that growth in H-1B employment was associated with increased total employment in science and engineering. Additionally, other researchers claimed that immigrant-founded companies actually created 450,000 jobs from 1995 to 2005 (Wadhwa et al. 2007b).

Another barrier for immigrant workers and students is the lack of opportunities once their visas expire. In fact, obtaining work visas was the largest concern expressed by 85 % of Indians and Chinese and 72 % of European nationals currently studying in U.S. higher education institutions (Wadhwa et al. 2009). The stay rate of foreign doctoral recipients has generally been high (though varying widely among countries), but it has also declined among those with temporary visas (Finn 2007). This burdensome process is precisely why only 6 % of Indian, 10 % of Chinese, and 15 % of European students would like to stay permanently. Along with a sizable undecided population, this group is rapidly turning to alternative options. Vivek Wadhwa, the director of research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University, describes how other countries are attracting these students:

If a tech start-up wants to launch in Chile, the government rolls out the red carpet. Entrepreneurs get $40,000 grants, free office space, and expedited visa clearance. There are no strings attached—provided the entrepreneur relocates to Chile and spends at least 6 months launching his or her idea. Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, and Singapore all offer variations on this theme as part of aggressive efforts to recruit entrepre- neurs. For its part, the Chinese government has pursued a particularly aggressive effort that includes awarding coveted city residency passes, free ownership of apartments, prestigious university posts, and outright cash grants to highly skilled returnees. Contrast this with Silicon Valley, where many foreign-born entrepreneurs spend a considerable amount of time, energy, and money worrying about their immigrant status and the whims of the Department of Homeland Security. (Wadhwa 2012)

Clearly, U.S. policies must not only welcome foreign talent, but also find ways to keep them in order to prevent a reverse brain drain. This includes: 1) loosening (or removing) H-1B visa cap restrictions for highly skilled workers; 2) supplying more grants, living residences, and research- or university-based positions; and 3) providing incentives, such as a fast-track residency program for both immigrants who graduate with an advanced degree in science and engineering and those who launch technology companies. Solutions as these would be similar to the DREAM Act, but for skilled—as opposed to undocumented—immigrants; yet implementation is predicated on the nation’s ability to recognize its uniquely diverse demographic advantages. If it cannot, America would be committing what New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has called a form of “national suicide.”

The 2012 Pew Study: The Rise of the Asian-American Immigrant Demographic

Unsurprisingly, a significant portion of highly skilled immigrants comes from Asia. They are granted three-quarters of all H-1B visas, for instance, with China and India alone accounting for 64 %. Even so, such findings tell only a fraction of an emerging trend, according to the Pew Research Center’s (2012) newest study, The Rise of Asian Americans. Asian Americans, the bulk of whom trace their roots to six countries—China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam, are standing out as a select group, leading all other racial groups in population growth, income, and education in the United States.

Representing 6.2 % of the total U.S. population (as of 2011), the Asian population (including mixed race Asians) grew 46 % over the past decade and surpassed Hispanics as the fastest growing immigrant group in 2010. Although the Latino immigration rate has slowed significantly since the middle of last decade, those from Asia have continued to gain—quintupling from 1980 (3.6 million) to 2011 (18.2 million). Asian immigrants also accounted for 36 % (430,000) of new immigrants—those coming between 2007 and 2010—compared with 31 % who were Hispanic (370,000). Based on the most recent U.S. Census Bureau’s (2008a, b) population projections, growth (or percentage change) for both groups will far outpace Blacks and whites by 2050; see Table 2. By then, it is estimated that Asians will number over 43 million and make up almost 10 % of the total U.S. population. The growth rate of whites will decline in comparison, going from 81 % of the population in 2010 to just about 77 % in 2050. If excluding mixed-race whites, they represented 64.7 % in 2010 and will steadily decline over the next four decades to 46.3 %. By 2050, whites in the U.S. will be the minority population.

The Asians’ level of growth is compounded by certain economic advantages. For one, Asian immigrants have a much lower undocumented rate compared to Latinos (approximately 15 % vs. 45 %, respectively). Also, Asian immigrants are notably more likely than other groups to be admitted with employment visas (27 % received green cards based on employer sponsorship, compared with 8 % of other immigrants). Most importantly, their median household income ($66,000) exceeds other groups, including whites ($54,000), even when adjusted for household size differences; see Fig. 2. Their median household wealth, or sum of assets, also eclipses the median U.S. population ($83,500 vs. $68,529), although they still lag far behind whites ($112,000). Despite outperforming whites in income, Asians have a lower net worth as a result of immigration restrictions prior to 1965 that hindered long-term asset accumulation. No doubt that gap will shrink significantly by 2050.

Fig.2 Median Household Income, 2010. Note: Asians include mixed-race Asian population, regardless of Hispanic origin. Whites and Blacks include only non-Hispanics. Hispanics are of any race. House-hold income is based on householders ages 18 and older; race and ethnicity are based on those of household head. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 2010 American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Sample (IPUMS) files, Pew Research Center (2012)

Such economic advantages are, in turn, due to the high overall level of education; almost half of Asians in the U.S. have at least a bachelor’s degree compared with 28 % of the general population. Among recent Asian immigrant adults, the percent is even higher: practically two-thirds who im- migrated between 2007 and 2010 were enrolled in college or graduate school, or held a college degree (see Fig. 3). Based on this trend, the education gap between Asians and other minorities will likely remain or widen unless current reforms are reimagined.

For now, overrepresentation is probably the most fitting description characterizing this ambitious demographic, especially within higher education. Asian Americans constitute 60 % of all foreign students in U.S. educational institutions. Within STEM fields, both foreign- and native- born Asian students disproportionately hold advanced U.S. degrees in 2010: A quarter of the 48,069 research doctorates granted at U.S. institutions; almost half of all engineering Ph.D.s, 38 % of math and computer science doctorates; one-third of physical sciences doctorates; one-quarter of life science Ph.D.s; and almost one in five social sciences doctorates. Predictably, two-thirds of the Intel Science high school finalists in 2011 were of Asian heritage. Many finalists and winners of this talent search have subsequently won Nobel Prizes, MacArthur and Sloan research fellowships, or been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. They have been the key to keeping the United States competitive with China and India.

Fig. 3 Education Characteristics of Recent Immigrants, by Race and Ethnicity, 2010. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 2010 Amer- ican Community Survey, Integrated Public Use of Microdata Sample (IPUMS) files, Pew Research Center (2012)

Undergirding their economic and educational edge is a distinctive culture that strongly values marriage, parent-hood, hard work, and career success. The Pew survey reveals that Asians do in fact place the highest priorities on: 1) being a good parent (three-quarters of Asian-Americans vs. 50 % of the general public); and 2) marriage (54 % say that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in life, compared with only 34 % of all American adults); see Fig. 4. As a result, they are more likely to be married (59 % vs. 51 % U.S. total), less likely to be an unmarried mother (16 % vs. 41 %), and their children are more likely than all American children to be raised in a household with two married parents (80 % vs. 63 %). Along with a larger than average household, this stability coincides with middle class values and creates a strong network of support for children’s growth and learning.

Hard work and success also rate highly among Asian Americans: 93 % believed that “[Asian] Americans from my country of origin group are very hardworking,” compared with only 57 % who thought that Americans are very hardworking. Perhaps no other book captured the stereotype of strict parenting more popularly than Yale law professor Amy Chua’s (2011) Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, in which she unapologetically opined why “Chinese mothers are superior.” In it, Chua extolled the virtues of authoritarian parenting where overriding children’s preferences was crucial in getting them to practice harder and longer to become better at what they are doing. Asian parents are more demanding because they “assume strength, not fragility” in their child, unlike American parents who constantly agonize over their child’s psyche, according to Chua. Results from the Pew survey appear to support her parenting model, with six-in-ten Asian Americans finding American parents put too little pressure on their children to succeed in school (only 9 % said the same about Asian-American parents). Interestingly, nearly four-in-ten Asian Americans also agree that Asian parents put too much pressure on their children.

Fig. 4 Life Goals and Priorities: Asian Americans vs. General Public. Source: Pew Research Center (2012): Asi-American Survey. Q19 a- g. General public results from January 2010 survey by the Pew Re- search Center. The question wording varied slightly from one survey to the other

Asians’ Academic Proficiency

Educators and policymakers are well aware of Asian’s over-all academic proficiency at the school level. Out of all ethnic groups, Asians had the highest percentage of students who were proficient (a score of 3 or 4) on state tests in 2008: 83 % of 4th and 8th graders were proficient in reading; whereas for math, 88 % in 4th Grade, 86 % in 8th grade, and 81 % in high school were deemed at least competent (Center for Education Policy, 2010); see Table 3. Only in high school reading did the same portion of whites score proficiently (78 %). Asians even outperformed whites in 29 out of 34 states in math state tests at the advanced level, representing a median of 46 % in the advanced category, compared with whites at 36 %. A significant gap between Asian/Whites and African American/Latinos exists across all levels, widening particularly in 8th grade and high school math. This plight has troubling implications for the 21st century economy if America’s education model rests on a one-size-fits-all approach.

In addition, Asian students are overrepresented among the gifted and talented (G&T). Asians make up only 5 % of the total primary and secondary public school population but comprise 9.4 % of the G&T population (Office of Civil Rights 2006). Representation can be measured by comparing the percent of students in programs for G&T relative to their proportion in the overall student population, with 1.0 a perfect proportionate representation. Asian students are overrepresented compared to white students in G&T programs (see Fig. 5), despite being outnumbered in total. It is possible that the percentage would be even higher if gifted and talented English language learners (i.e., limited in understanding English) were also included.

Asians’ STEM Contributions

High growth, income, and education certainly suggest significant potential, but do not necessarily reveal impact. The Pew study showed that Asians earned a disproportionate number of degrees in science, technology, engineering and math as well as of H-1B visas, but actual economic and intellectual contributions are needed to prove the value of demographic characteristics as the basis for a reimagined education model. Within the engineering and technology fields, for example, Asians—especially Chinese and Indian—are a driving force behind entrepreneurship and intellectual property that directly impact America’s GDP.

In terms of immigrant-founded businesses, the four largest immigrant groups came from India, the U.K., China, and Taiwan (Wadhwa et al. 2007b). However, Asian nations comprised half of the top ten nations whose immigrants founded engineering and technology (E&T) companies. In particular, Indians were key founders of 26 % of E&T start-ups from 1995 to 2005. In fact, they dominated the entrepreneurial arena among immigrant-founded businesses—more than those from the next four nationalities combined (see Fig. 6). Their growth, as illustrated in Silicon Valley, outpaced every other immigrant group over the past twenty years: Indian-led businesses in Silicon Valley more than doubled (from 7 % to 15.5 %) between 1995 and 2005, whereas Chinese-led tech companies declined from 17 % in 1998 (Saxenian 1999) to 12.8 % in 2005.

Fig. 6 Birthplace of Engineering and Technology Immigrant Founders. Source: Wadhwa et al. (2007b)

Aside from founding engineering and technology companies, Asians also played a significant role in other STEM fields. Whereas Fig. 1 displayed the contributions of immigrants as a whole in each industry, Table 4 compares the influence between Asia and Europe.

Workers from Asia represent the largest portion in four out of the five immigrant-founded STEM industries listed above. Those from India, in particular, stand out significantly, founding more companies in the innovation/manufacturing-related services sector (24 %) than those from all of the European nations combined (19 %). Indian immigrants also dwarf those from other Asian nations, including Japan (7 %) and China (6 %). As a reference point, the next highest non-Asian nation was the U.K. (6 %).

The biosciences field was more evenly distributed. Indians, Germans, and Koreans each accounted for 10 % of immigrant-founded start-ups, and British, French, and Israeli immigrants each contributing 6 %. In total, those from Asia and Europe represented 32 % and 37 %, respectively.

Within both the computers/communications and the semiconductors industry, workers from China, Taiwan, and India were overrepresented. They accounted for over half of all immigrant start-ups in the former and 40 % in the latter. Overall, the percentage of Asian immigrant-founders in the computer industry (63 %) and semiconductors industry (55 %) was more than triple that of Europeans (20 % and 15 %, respectively).

Finally, in the software industry, Indians alone dom- inated immigrants from all other nations, founding 34 % of all new businesses. Their rate was almost four times the next highest group, the British (9 %). Asians overall founded twice as many start-ups as those from Europe (48 % vs. 24 %).

Intellectual property, in the form of patents, is another concrete measure of STEM innovation. Data from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), which measures domestic patenting activity, revealed a steadily increasing rate among Asian residents over a thirty- year period (Foley and Kerr 2012). Chinese and Indian patenting activity, for example, accounted for merely 5.3 % from 1975 to 1982, but by the 2000 to 2004 period, their share increased three-fold to almost 17 %. In contrast, patenting among ethnic whites has declined over the same period. Those of white Americans, who own the lion’s share of patents in the U.S., fell 16 % (from 81 % to 68 %). Innovators from Europe saw patenting activity fall even more sharply at 25 % (from 8.3 % to 6.2 %); see Fig. 7.

Though the number of patents filed through the USPTO is crucial to many corporations, international patenting rates filed through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have become the standard measure of global relevance. Out of the 130,000 international patent cooperation treaty (PCT) applications filed in the U.S. in 2006, almost one-third was by either Chinese/Taiwanese (16.8 %) or Indian (13.7 %) inventors, followed by Canadians and British (Wadhwa et al. 2007b). The three-fold increase from 1998 (when Chinese and Indian immigrants combined had only 10.8 % of PCT applications) practically mirrors the growth recorded by the USPTO over three decades. However, their larger presence in the international stage of intellectual property suggests that Asians play a real and significant role in America’s global economy. When combined with their entrepreneurial growth in STEM industries, the Asian emergence underscores the important role of demographics in education reform.

The Call for Genuine Equity and Excellence Based on Differentiated Abilities

Acknowledging the rise of Asian immigrants or the impact of the smart fraction is in no way meant to suggest any inherent abilities that other groups lack; in fact, many immigrants from Southeast Asian countries face much of the same poverty and low achievement as American minorities. However, with all the data on the economic contribution of highly skilled immigrants and the intellectual class, it is nonetheless easy to dismiss these findings as elitist or even racist. In fact, it is merely acknowledging what parents, teachers, and others have long known to be true: that individuals have wide ranging abilities, inclinations, and interests, and that various factors—fairly or unfairly—contribute to these gaps.

Progressive thinkers are understandably reluctant, however, to promulgate any kind of differentiated development in light of historical oppression and man’s imperfect nature. As a result, modern policies become captive to the unwavering push for “equality” at the expense of bona fide excellence, as demonstrated by the declining proficiency standards in public school tests and in higher education. Marketers and politicians, in this way, have it easier; they aren’t held to the same equity imperatives that educators are. Certain groups—like big donors—simply matter more to political candidates than others. For advertisers, addressing the different wants and needs of suburban moms or the millennial generation is fairly straightforward; yet with education, coming to grips with differences in mental abilities is far more difficult to accept.

Curiously, some interpretations about abilities and outcomes are widely embraced. Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner’s (1983) research, for example, suggests that people have differing abilities and should play to their strengths; yet, because they are couched in progressive terms like “multiple intelligences,” his message is celebrat- ed. Scientist Jared Diamond (1997) used geographic features—a country’s latitude, its proximity to the sea, and its agricultural hospitality—to explain the political and economic preeminence of Eurasian countries like the U.K. or Japan, compared to Tanzania, for instance. His book became a popular bestseller. Social psychologist Richard Nisbett (2003) credited the intertwining of differing geographies with ecology, social structure, philosophy, and educational systems to explain profound cognitive differences between westerners and East Asians. On the whole, Nisbett’s conclusions are widely accepted.

Regardless of America’s wide discomfort to recognize differing abilities, inequality in the outcomes of schooling is a function of the natural inequality of talent among people (Ornstein 1977), due to the different mental patterns and thinking processes that are shaped by both genetics and environmental forces. Demographic patterns, as research has shown, illustrate and sometimes magnify these differences. They should thus be considered when reimagining a more equitable education paradigm. The answer is not to try to equalize math or verbal or artistic abilities as characterized by the “Education For All” initiative (UNESCO 2005); rather, the solution lies in differentiating the curriculum to meet different individual and group interests and abilities, as other industries have already recognized.

First, a reframed education paradigm should embrace the differentiated model that can optimize students’ talents and interests in different areas. Developing one’s athletic, cognitive, or artistic capabilities will not only lead to personal self-fulfillment, but also to significant contributions for so- ciety. For example, policies need to de-emphasize the current “STEM coursework for all” approach, which allocates limited resources to the vast majority of students who will never go into STEM jobs. Instead, the emphasis should be on promoting an “all STEM for some” approach—recruiting and developing STEM skills of only interested and capable students, including high-potential immigrants. Allocating resources to those with artistic or athletic talent has long been accepted, so why not for the cognitively gifted and talented?

Next, identification and development must start early. As much as 50 % of potential learning is developed by age four, another 25 % by age nine, and the remaining 25 % by age seventeen, according to Bloom (1964). This suggests that allocation of resources must be mainly focused in early childhood and primary grades. It also suggests that G&T students be homogeneously grouped, which some critics might question as elitist or discriminatory.

Third, there must be honest recognition that mathematical, verbal, and spatial skills are more prized in a knowledge-based economy. The problem is the “misbegotten, pernicious, wrong-headed idea that not going to college means you’re a failure” (Murray 2008, p. 150). This does not mean that those with limited cognitive abilities cannot contribute, merely that the academic track may not be an appropriate or desirable use of one’s time and resources. Instead, policymakers should expand niche secondary education services to meet employer demand.

For example, a knowledge-based economy also needs employees with basic and middle skills to implement the innovation strategies developed by scientists in a mutually enforcing way (Hanushek and Woessmann 2009; Autor et al. 2006). These positions have been called “middle-skill jobs”—those such as computer support, back office work in financial and healthcare companies, auto repair using computer diagnostic equipment—many of which requires more than a high school degree but not necessarily a traditional college degree. High school students who pursue the vocational track or 21st century career and technical education (CTE) programs like SkillsUSA, YearUp, and ITT will have the sought-after middle skills that have separate but complementary effects on economic growth.

The Road Ahead

The current school reform model, based on equality, is well intentioned and politically correct, but an antiquated solu- tion for unleashing innovation since it ignores inherent demographic differences. In fact, Gardner (1995) suggests that: “Extreme egalitarianism…which ignores differences in native capacity and achievement, has not served democracy well. Carried far enough, it means…the end of striving for excellence which has produced mankind’s greatest achievement.” The implication is to develop capabilities at all levels, otherwise we will be left with mismatched skills that result in what Uchitelle (2006) calls “disposable Americans,” those caught in the cycle of unemployment and underemployment. However, developing the differing abilities of individuals, whether it is cognitive or physical, is the ultimate realization of Gardner’s theme and the only ethical way to allow for true human dignity.

Further Reading

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Partnership for a New American Economy. 2011. Immigration and American Jobs. Washington DC: Madeline Zavodny. Re- trieved from http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/ pnae/img/NAE_Im-AmerJobs.pdf.

Autor, D., Katz, L., & Kearney, M. 2006. The polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review, 96(2), 189–194.

Bloom, B. 1964. Stability and change in human characteristics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Center on Education Policy (CEP). 2010. Policy implications of trends for Asian American students. Washington, DC: Nancy Kober.

Chua, A. 2011. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: Penguin Press.

Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Finn, M. 2007. Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients From U.S. Universities, 2005. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Retrieved from http://orise.orau.gov/files/sep/ stay-rates-foreign-doctorate-recipients-2005.pdf.

Foley, C., & Kerr, W. 2012. Ethnic innovation and U.S. multinational firm activity (HBS Working Paper 12-006). Cambridge: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=1911295.

Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, J. 1995. Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? (Revised ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gelade, G. 2008. IQ, cultural values, and the technological achievement of nations. Intelligence, 36, 711–718.

Hanushek, E., and Woessmann, L. 2009. Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causa- tion (Discussion Paper No. 4575). Retrieved from Institute for the Study of Labor Web site: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4575.pdf.

Heckman, J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. 2006. The effects of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482.

Hunt, E., & Wittman, W. 2008. National intelligence and national prosperity. Intelligence, 36, 1–9.

Jones, G., & Schneider, W. 2010. IQ in the production function: Evidence from immigrant earnings. Economic Inquiry, 48(3), 743–755.

Kerr, W., & Lincoln, W. 2010. The supply side of innovation: H-1B visa reforms and US ethnic innovation (Revised version of HBS Working Paper 09-005). Cambridge: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://www.people.hbs.edu/wkerr/Kerr_Lincoln_ JOLE3_H1B_Paper.pdf.

Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. 2002. IQ and wealth of nations. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. 2006. IQ and global inequality. Augusta: Washington Summit Publishers.

Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. 2012. The search for skills: Demand for H1-B immigrant workers in U.S. metropolitan areas. Washington, DC: Neil G. Ruiz, Jill H. Wilson, and Shyamali Choudhury.

Murray, C. 2008. Real education: Four simple truths for bringing America’s schools back to reality. New York: Three Rivers Press.

National Academy of Sciences. 2007. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

Nisbett, R. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians and westerners think differently…and why. New York: Free Press.

Office for Civil Rights. 2006. Civil rights data collection. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/projections_2006.

Ornstein, A. 1977. An introduction to the foundations of education. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

Partnership for a New American Economy. 2012. Patent pending: How immigrants are reinventing the American economy. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.renewoureconomy.org/index.php? q=patent-pending

Pew Research Center. 2012. The rise of Asian Americans. Washington, DC: Paul Taylor (Ed.).

Rindermann, H. 2007. The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 667–706.

Rindermann, H. 2008. Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people. Intelligence, 36, 127–142.

Rindermann, H., & Thompson, J. 2011. Cognitive capitalism: The effect of cognitive ability on wealth, as mediated through scien- tific achievement and economic freedom. Psychological Science, 22(6), 754–763.

Rindermann, H., Sailer, M., & Thompson, J. 2009. The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development. Talent Development & Excellence, 1(1), 3–25.

Saxenian, A. 1999. Silicon Valley’s new immigrant entrepreneurs. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_699ASR.pdf.

Scullin, M. H., Peters, E., Williams, W. W., & Ceci, S. J. 2000. The role of IQ and education in predicting later labor market outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 63–89.

The Innovation Technology and Innovation Foundation. 2010. Refueling the U.S. innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington, DC: Robert D. Atkinson and Merrilea Mayo.

U.S. Census Bureau (Population Division). 2008a. Table 4. Projections of the Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T4). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

U.S. Census Bureau (Population Division). 2008b. Table 6. Percent of the Projected Population by Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T6). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

Uchitelle, L. 2006. The disposable American: Layoffs and their consequences. New York: Knopf.

UNESCO. 2005. Education for all: The quality imperative, EFA global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.

Wadhwa, V. 2012. Insourcing. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/10/insourcing

Wadhwa, V., Jasso, G., Rissing, B., Gereffi, G., and Freeman, R. 2007a. Intellectual property, the immigration backlog, and a re- verse brain drain: America’s new immigrant entrepreneurs, Part III. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008366 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1008366

Wadhwa, V., Saxenian, A., Rissing, B., and Gereffi, G., 2007b. America’s new Immigrant entrepreneurs: Part I. Duke Science, Technology & Innovation Paper No. 23. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=990152 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.990152

Wadhwa, V., Saxenian, A., Freeman, R., and Salkever, A. 2009. Losing the world’s best and brightest: America’s new immigrant entre- preneurs, Part V. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1362012

No matter our ideology, education will always be closely linked with a nation’s economy. We saw a ramping up of science and math education during the Sputnik era in the 1950s-1960s, another call for rigorous standards when fears emerged about international competition from Japan (and Germany) in the 1980s. Of course, the past decade has been all about meeting the demands of the global 21st century knowledge-based economy under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the call for more STEM education.

Too bad. The “excellence” march will always trump the “equity” one when a nation’s economy is at stake. Such initiatives might make us economically and militarily powerful, but not necessarily a better nation. Once countries reach “maturity,” (i.e., industrialization or advanced development stage), they need a more post-modern approach that considers its people and its responsibility to the world. And that requires a socially-conscious approach to education.

Countries that are rapidly developing in order to catch up the the U.S., such as China, India, and Brazil, will generally forgo social/environmental progress in order to reach economic ones, which is exactly what we did in the middle of the 20th century. Environmental concerns and civil rights didn’t come about until after World War II, when the world recognized this period as “the American Century.” We can afford to be more socially and ecologically aware when we’re at the top, while other countries will probably follow our footsteps as they progress. Yet the gini coefficient indicates an economic inequality not seen since the Great Depression (not to mention social and political polarity). Nothing exemplifies this zeitgist more than Occupy Wall Street.

Do other countries want to follow this American Dream? Maybe not.

As nation’s are seeking to define their place in the world, they may not necessarily want what we have; some in fact resent it. Thomas Friedman’s recent article in the New York Times, entitled China Needs Its Own Dream, pointed to the conscious change that many Chinese citizens are making in shaping their 21st century identity. Peggy Liu, the founder of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, argues that the Chinese today are yearning to create a new national identity, one that merges traditional Chinese values like balance, respect, and flow, with its new modern urban reality.

China’s latest five-year plan is based on sustainability for its burgeoning middle class that seeks to counter the growing conspicuous consumerism. The younger generation does not necessarily want to follow the typical growth path–the rising consumption, “now it’s our turn” kind of mentality–that Americans went through.

Instead, the creation of a “Chinese Dream” that redefines personal prosperity by merging the unique traditional Chinese values with the burgeoning urbanization to create more access to better products and services–not necessarily owning them–so everyone gets a piece of the pie. This includes better public transportation, spaces, housing, e-learning, and e-commerce. For a society, isn’t “better access for all” preferable to “exclusive ownership”? It’s certainly greener and infinitely more egalitarian.

This socially conscious mindset amongst its students appears to be more prevalent as well. One student Friedman interviewed, Zhou Lin, said that it was in China’s best interest to find a “cleaner” growth path.

Part of this change, I believe is that they spend a lot of time reflecting on what other nations have done as a blueprint for success (such as America’s innovation and higher education) and on what dangers to avoid (e.g., American social values). No doubt they want to define their own path to trumpet as a 21st model to emulate. A lot will be riding on the new leadership’s ability to address increasing prosperity and inequality.

For the U.S., the current education culture is exclusively focused on maintaining economic hegemony and STEM competitiveness. Where is the socially conscious models that George Counts and Nel Noddings advocated for? Despite the calls to close the achievement gap, it seems far too much is placed on standards and testing in the interest of economic expediency. Perhaps excellence in education for the 21st century should consider more of the socially-conscious and heterogeneous model that values individual growth and global collaboration.

As a former advertising executive, I learned an important lesson: Know your target audience.

It means that you need to get into the minds of whoever you are selling to. For example, advertisers ask questions like: Why do people want to buy an iPhone instead of a Blackberry? Why should one use an online bank over a brick and mortar one? More importantly, What problem do they have that we can solve? And Why should they care about our product?

When a consumer sees that a company “gets” them (i.e., by clearly communicating the problem that she is facing), she might be more amenable to the company’s solution (i.e., our smartphone is easy to use and looks great, or our bank offers more money back and no annoying fees, etc.).

It’s a simple lesson that most people know, but people rarely apply this to other parts of their life. Sometimes, marketers forget this too (see an intriguing video about how condom marketers failed to understand the Congolese mindset). It boggles my mind when I see someone presenting in front of a group and completely boring the audience (which I believe is most of the time). The simple reason isn’t necessarily because the presenter is a poor speaker, but because he is not engaging the audience’s interest. He should be asking himself questions such as, What do they care about? How can I make it easier for them to be engaged?

The same goes for an employee communicating with a boss (or vice versa), a teacher engaging her students, parents teaching a child, and even a politician trying to raise campaign funds. Knowing your audience is the only thing you can control, and in some cases, the economic well-being of our nation depends on it.

Recently, the U.S. has been considering sanctions against China for devaluing its currency, essentially putting us at a trade disadvantage. China’s products have been costing less to produce and export while costing ours more — bad, if we want the world’s second largest economy to buy our stuff. It also encourages the export of American jobs (due to cheaper labor costs in China), which hurts our economy. The problem only arises, however, if the U.S. decides to impose sanctions that force China into revaluing its currency as a way to rescue American jobs.

Forget the fact that China is in the driver’s seat and knows that America is desperate. By passing a bill hinting at stiff tariffs, the U.S. Senate is taking coercive action that could lead to a disastrous trade war — all because we don’t know the target audience. As Rana Foroohar, the Curious Capitalist writer for Time warned: “If you really want the Chinese to do something, never pressure them about it in public. Loss of face is anathema in the Middle Kingdom.” In fact, it has made them even more defiant, lowering the renminbi even more.

This is why an educated society is so crucial — ignorance of cultural sensitivities goes against the golden rule in advertising. You cannot sell them something if you don’t know them. Better approach it the way Henry Kissinger did in the 1970s, through closed-doored cooperation that allows the Chinese to maintain their dignity and harmony with the U.S. Wouldn’t employees prefer private one-on-one conversations with management over misunderstandings instead of public grievances? How about students or teachers at a principal’s office? Or a coach-athlete dispute in the locker room instead of in front of the press?

Hearing Republican primary candidates like Gov. Mitt Romney in the GOP debate recently insist on public sanctions on China makes him appear unworldly in a global stage, which can further damage America’s image. However, his opponent, Jon Huntsman — a former U.S. ambassador to China — has shown a more nuanced understanding in his answers (which goes back to my theory that informed people tend to be worldly travelers while the least informed tend to travel and live abroad much less — a future topic to address). Belligerent posturing will get nowhere with an emerging superpower that has endured centuries of humiliation and submission.

In fact, cultural context is so essential that it can even affect conclusions drawn from cross-cultural research studies, as I discovered recently. In surveys given to diverse students, I found that Asian students appeared to score themselves lower on various questions of ability, despite the fact that there is little discernible differences in such. Reviews of past research reveal that they tend to underestimate their abilities and uniqueness (compared with Americans or westerners) due to of their Confucian culture of modesty. This phenomenon is called self-effacing bias. In fact, there was a 1991 study that compared perceptions of Japanese undergraduate students with American counterparts on estimations of one’s intellectual ability. An American student, on average, felt only 30% of his university’s peers have higher abilities than himself, compared with 50% for a Japanese student. This sense of false-uniqueness can affect the validity of any study if one’s responses are colored by complicated factors such as cultural and personal orientation. Something to keep in mind next time a political candidate offers simple solutions to complex problems.

The bottom line: own your target audience by knowing everything about what makes them tick; this mindset is part of having a broader and wiser perspective. Without it, we are just living in our own world — a parochialism that I fear is becoming an increasing part of the American identity.

Success can be defined in many ways and can be seen in people as diverse as Steve Jobs, Jay-Z, Gandhi, or Lance Armstrong. They all have different skills that range from the entrepreneurial to the athletic, but one trait they have in common is the one thing that schools neglect to teach. A certain character of mind and habit.

Grit.

Grit is the internal character that makes one resilient, and it happens to be the new buzzword in education, business, and self-improvement. It is not something that schools have traditionally focused on, but David Levin, co-founder of the KIPP network of charter schools has been taking notice. He found that although his middle schools performed highly in NYC over ten years ago, only 33% of them graduated from a four-year college. But the KIPP alumni who had exceptional character strengths like persistence, optimism, and social intelligence did graduate, despite their less than stellar grades.

By collaborating with psychologists and like-minded professionals, he implemented a program that focused on these strengths, called performance character. It was so important that every student at KIPP received a character report card on top of an academic one, and it measures seven dimensions of internal character: zest, grit, self-control, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism and curiosity. (Read more about performance character in the NYT article, What if the Secret to Success is Failure?)

Performance character is a relatively new concept, although it used to be couched under the more familiar terms of self-control or discipline, qualities that have long been studied and advocated as essential for life success. Yet these terms are somewhat limited, as they only imply restraint — not potential or capacity, concepts that are equally critical to hurdling obstacles.

Regardless, self-regulatory traits have given way to self-expressive ones over the past five decades, as charted by historian James Collier in his excellent book The Rise of Selfishness in America. This cult of individualism gave birth to a child-centered movement and parental overindulgence. The result? A narcissistic generation of what L.A. clinical psychologist Wendy Mogel dubbed “teacups,” psychologically fragile kids insulated from any kind of discomfort or struggle. Dominic Randolph, headmaster of the prestigious Riverdale private school in NY, agrees, asserting that “…in most highly academic environments in the United States, no one fails anything.” And without that ability to overcome adversity, many privileged children turn out unhappy or in need of treatment, as reported by psychologist Lori Gottlieb in The Atlantic’s How to Land Your Kid in Therapy.

Because even smart children nowadays struggle to pull themselves out of a crisis, Randolph has also worked with Levin to implement performance character evaluations at his school. He felt that traditional moral character education, though crucial, only dealt with external interpersonal relations (e.g., fairness and tolerance; how one treats someone else). On the other hand, performance character education was more about teaching and evaluating the importance of intrapersonal traits — those that include the ability to bounce back or to see an endeavor through to the end. I.Q. might be the better predictor of scores on statewide achievement tests, but measures of self-control are more reliable indicators of report-card grades — and of life success. For example, having a strong performance character might lead a struggling student to finish college, to pull together when she has an emotional meltdown, or even to learn a new language. Self-management through delayed gratification.

How important is performance character to professional success? According to Dr. Paul Stoltz, 96% of top employers believe the right mindset is more important than the right skill. The co-author of Put Your Mindset to Work: The One Asset You Really Need to Win and Keep the Job You Love, felt that the “3G mindset,” one of which is Grit will make you exponentially more desirable to employers. (The other two G‘s are: Good, which means having moral integrity; and Global, which is being open and having a big picture perspective.)

Given the intensifying global competition, the importance of developing inner resilience and tenacity to thrive in adversity is even more urgent. America may have replaced self-regulation with self-expression over the last fifty years, but many cultures have resisted it (even as they are becoming more liberal). China and India, along with other emerging centers Brazil, Turkey, etc., are showing lots of grit, reminiscent of second-place Avis’ advertising campaign in targeting car rental market leader Hertz: We try harder. Cross-cultural research shows that Asian countries in particular have always placed an emphasis on hard work and determination over innate ability, which is less the case in many western countries. Combined with hunger, their ascent seems almost assured.

For parents and teachers, the bottom line lesson: Always promote and illustrate the importance of self-regulation and grit, not natural ability. Through adversity, they will be better prepared for future.

The debate on America’s global position between geopolitical analyst Fareed Zakaria and journalist David von Drehle in this week’s Time characterizes the typical dichotomous perspective in current political polemics: One is forward-thinking, while the other looks back.

For quite some time Zakaria has questioned America’s commitment to maintain economic dominance, as written in the recent Time article:

…we have a political system that has become allergic to compromise and practical solutions…We have an electoral college that no one understands and a Senate that doesn’t work, with rules and traditions that allow a single Senator to obstruct democracy without even explaining why. We have a crazy-quilt patchwork of towns, municipalities and states with overlapping authority, bureaucracies and resulting waste. We have a political system that geared toward ceaseless fundraising and pandering to the interests of the present with no ability to plan, invest or build for the future. And if one mentiones any of this, why, one is being unpatriotic…

He argues that countries as China, Germany, India, and those in Northern Europe have (or are investing in) systems and structures that will provide a global edge, such as flexible governments, dedicated research and development, and even social and cultural capital (e.g., work ethic, positive dispositions about standard of living). He believes that America’s success has made it arrogant and insular to the world at large, and that it needs to adapt and meet that challenge. I have made similar argument in my post, More Evidence of American Decline?

On the other hand, Drehle maintains that these same pundits have perennially bemoaned a national decline, and that this message is overstated:

…how come we’re so much stronger than we were 50 years ago? Somehow, in the 235 years since we got started, Americans have weathered…Soviet science prodigies, violent lyrics and sex out of wedlock. We’ve survived a Civil War, two world wars and a Great Depression, not to mention immigrant hordes, alcohol, Freemasons and the “vast wasteland” of network television. (See Drehle’s full article)

This at a time when emerging powerhouse China is averaging an astounding 10% annual economic growth by investing in education and infrastructure (compared to about 3% U.S. growth) and just recently revealed an ambitious five-year economic plan “to raise ordinary people’s income, rein in pollution and energy use, and build advanced-science industries in fields like biotechnology and environmental protection” (See article on China’s five-year plan).

I am not necessarily questioning Drehle’s data; some of which are probably true. It is more the reactionary mindset that troubles me, because he represents a sizable bloc that glorifies what had worked for America in the past. There is an inherent satisfaction about America’s current position, as opposed to a hunger to improve: It’s worked so far, so why change?

In business, such resistance to change and adapt usually results in failure. Steve Jobs, Apple’s irrepressible CEO, revolutionized the music industry ten years ago with Apple’s iPod player (and iTunes digital music store), yet the company has not relied on its success to maintain its industry lead. In the fast paced technology world, Apple has remained at the top by consistently and aggressively seeking opportunities that no other organization has successfully capitalized on. It soon added the game-changing iPhone in 2007 and the iPad tablet last year. The competition have barely kept up, let alone out-innovate. Microsoft, much like the U.S., has taken the more complacent attitude, and its tenuous grip on market dominance has been exposed. No doubt its employees have worked hard and sacrificed too, but I don’t detect that same sense of urgency. And it shows. In the world of geo-politics, Zakaria has sounded the alarm while Drehle has been content to say “…the U.S. will do just fine in the world it has shaped.”

Look at history. FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy quickly reacted and adapted American priorities after WW2 to stimulate economic growth and to counteract perceived foreign threats with the New Deal, the interstate highway system, renewed investment in science, technology, and public education. Since enacting these changes, America has gained political, economic, and military hegemony.

Zakaria summed up America’s current state with the word sclerotic. It means becoming rigid and unresponsive — losing the ability to adapt.

Want to see scleroticism at work? Let’s look at the issue of high-speed internet development: While South Korea leads the world in broadband access for all families, and while China has plans to expand its technology to smaller cities and rural areas, America continues to lag behind with 40% of its citizens without any access at home, and even higher in rural households. Part of the problem stems from the sluggish response of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make regulatory changes that would allow telecommunication companies to share the cost of laying down fiber into the ground. Another part involves the monolithic stronghold of big companies like Verizon to allow fertile competition that would drive down the price and help breed innovative solutions.

Not that FCC is dragging its feet; they are actually making policy recommendations towards universal broadband for 100 million U.S. households with speeds of 100 megabits per second (mbps) by 2020. That is several times faster than current speeds in most households — anywhere from 3 to 20 Mbps. Unfortunately, those projections won’t come even approach what Hong Kong has done recently.

1,000 megabits per second (1 gigabit). All for only $26 per month.

To compare, Verizon’s fastest service for residential customers can download 50 mbps (20 for uploading) for about $150 per month (it does offer 150 mbps for small businesses for $195/month). See full article comparing HK and U.S.

What’s the big deal? Well, nothing if all you do is check email and surf the internet, but a lot if you’re consuming entertainment, developing new applications, or using telemedicine, for example. In other words, universal broadband is the key to driving economic development by creating job and luring business opportunities. How long have we talked about doing this? But it won’t happen without decisive changes by politicians and the FCC.

Scleroticism.

One last thought. For thousands of years, China was notably insulated while Western Europe was the opposite; it aggressively sought new opportunities through expansion and innovation. China has changed much since then, due in part to Deng Xiaoping’s open door policy on international trade; more recently, it created substantial economic growth through international partnerships with Africa, Germany, New Zealand, and South America. On the other hand, American exports account for only 10% of its economy — not the picture of globalization. With its aggressive modernization, China is the one looking forward, ironically, while America is looking back.

In order to address 21st century needs, this 5-part series explores the need to create a “culture of education” in the U.S. amid the misguided clamor for accountability and market-based reforms that merely distract from real changes. Part 1 addressed the importance of four interdependent components in building a culture of education in the United States: school; parents/family; government; and community. Part 2 asked why there is so little discussion of parent accountability in education reform. Part 3 reflects on the importance of community and culture. Part 4 will emphasize the need for the government to change existing social policies to make it easier for families to emphasize education.

In a culture of education, the school, family, community, and government need to work cooperatively — one aspect working without the other three can only improve learning and education by so much. Currently, policymakers have been consumed with piecemeal efforts like teacher accountability, putting millions of dollars into research and systems that determine the teachers’ effectiveness on student achievement. No doubt the teaching profession need continual improvements, but not at the expense of developing students and family. The government will need to be a big part of that, but not in the way they have been currently operating.

Right now Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and other accountability hawks have created a culture that encourage market-based solutions to public problems. What’s wrong with that? Essentially, a market-based mentality will always result in clear winners and losers in a system that claims to leave NO child behind. The “losers” will be the same as the ones before — the poor and the disadvantaged. Activist Joanne Barkan wrote a comprehensive indictment of the current trend of market-based reforms in her article entitled Public School Reform in the Age of Venture Philanthropy.

So what should the federal and state government’s role be in education reform? Simply to create social structures that facilitate family commitment to education.

This, on top of regulating fairness and uniformity. As I mentioned in Part 3, there is too much “noise” in society that distract families and students (especially the disadvantaged) from focusing on their education; the American popular culture of excess — from entertainment to foods — drowns out priorities.

Here the government must counteract such competing interests through robust family policies on a broad social as well as a tactical level in order to emphasize a culture of education. Unfortunately, our policies are less “pro-family” than those in other developed countries. (See chart below)

The unpaid time American parents are allowed to take off from work takes an economic and psychological toll that cripple their ability to prepare school-ready children – particularly the at-risk parents. Same with early child care and sick leave. Simply put, the more family-friendly the policies, the less parents need to worry about survival, and the more they can nurture a school-ready environment for their child. Other tactical policies need to continue encouraging and rewarding pro-education behavior. This includes incentivized tax-breaks and deep discounts for ALL:

• Books, supplies, and uniforms
• Educational shows and performances
• Private tutoring and other educational supplements

Sustained government action will help to create this culture of education, supported by family, school, and community accountability. The key to building momentum is not by trying to change people’s behavior through nanny state policies (i.e., trying to do what’s best for you); but rather, to understand how people are and change their default behavior by providing better, more attractive choices.

Don’t take away the french fries, just put it in the back.

This means that the government rewards good behavior without encouraging the bad. Look no further than how the government subsidizes certain agricultural crops. Corn is heavily subsidized, which dramatically decreases the cost of manufacturing snack foods and soda that has played a role in the obesity epidemic (particularly among those in poverty). “We have made it more expensive to eat in a very big way, ” says Dr. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition and agricultural economics at UNC and author of The World is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies, and Products That Are Fattening the Human Race. “If we cut the subsidy on whole milk and made it cheaper only to drink low-fat milk, people would switch to it and it would save a lot of calories” (excerpted from Fixing a World That Fosters Fat). Make no mistake, choice architecture has a stronger influence over the health (or education) of a nation than outright mandates.

Imagine the impact if our elected officials apply these subsidies in education. If a parent could take her 10 year-old child to see March of the Penguins, a highly-acclaimed documentary for $5, or see The Dark Knight for the regular-priced $13 (in NYC), which would they go see? On the whole there would be a lot less tendency to see the latter. Now multiply that by ten movies a year for all families, and the difference across the nation would be staggering. This idea can be applied to not just families, but even businesses:

What if natural whole foods like fruits were heavily subsidized? Cheetos would be more expensive than a pound of apples. The implications for the health of the poor would be immense.

What if the government subsidized the production of educational entertainment? More studios would produce them.

What if they subsidized the manufacturing of educational computer games? The educational market would be saturated more software games like I Love Science and less Guitar Hero.

The net effect would be to marginalize less-educational offerings without trampling over free choice, but the biggest gain would be the gradual change in a society towards education. Families would be more apt to consume educational goods instead of being influenced by the whims of popular culture and the market. They just need a little nudge, as I wrote more about in my post, Willing Ourselves to Change Won’t Work. By investing in the family (as opposed to teachers and accountability), the government would have a more meaningful and long term impact on education in the U.S.

In addressing the need for more American economic competitiveness, President Obama called on the nation to set the goal that “by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” It is an ambitious plan to make the U.S. competitive in the 21st century, considering that the Center on Education and the Workforce predicted that at current graduation rates, America would fall short of the needed 22 million graduates in 2018 by 3 million. Adding to the problem, ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer reported that this year China will graduate four times the number of college graduates than the U.S.

Clearly, Americans need to worry about themselves, as suggested in one of my previous posts. However, as progressive as China is made to sound, its dominance is not inevitable.

For one, China’s education system, though widely lauded for its rigorous culture, is also struggling to meet the demands of the 21st century economy.

The deeply ingrained Asian Confucian ideal of hard work, dedication, and “following the master’s way” has created a culture of education that has consistently placed China, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong among other Asian nations to the top of international lists in math, science, and even reading achievement (according to the latest international PISA results). The U.S. can learn from such dedication and high standards. But China’s emphasis on the all-important gaokao (college entrance exams) unintentionally creates three roadblocks toward premier status:  1) it sustains an anachronistic culture of rote learning in a modern era; and 2) it creates a social and economic divide; and 3) it sustains a thriving industry of fraud that jeopardizes China’s legitimate power.

The rigid culture of lecture and rote memorization has produced a thriving manufacturing economy, but for China to compete, it must be able to innovate and create new products and services. These fiercely competitive gaokao exams, where 9.5 million high school students compete for 6.5 million university positions, is also not conducive to producing revolutionary innovators on the level of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, according to the ABC World News report. China has, however, recognized this problem and is working towards a more open curriculum that fosters creativity.

Secondly, this meritocratic exam, though it theoretically allows even the poor to equitably advance to a better life, has also inadvertently created a social divide. The students who pass then go on to college in economically developed urban areas as Shanghai and Beijing, but the ones who cannot pass essentially go back to their rural areas. Most likely the unfortunate ones end up as itinerant manufacturing laborers migrating from rural hometowns to urban areas; the result: a classic economic gap. As the well-educated prosper, education itself has become more expensive as these parents pay for enrichment materials, supplemental classes, nursery schools in early preparation for the all-consuming gaokao exams.

Perhaps the most deleterious effect of this exam is corruption and fraud. Not that exams create this problem per se, but its long-standing, all-important tradition nourishes an environment ripe for fraud that begins early on. There has been rising media exposure (both inside and outside China) documenting rampant academic and government fraud in China and calling for Chinese action. With an emphasis on quotas and quantity over quality, academicians are more susceptible to plagiarizing papers, fudging data, or simply fabricating qualifications. The Economist recently wrote about this phenomenon, citing one case in particular:

The most notable recent case centres on Tang Jun, a celebrity executive, a self-made man and author of a popular book, ‘My Success Can Be Replicated.’ He was recently accused of falsely claiming that he had a doctorate from the prestigious California Institute of Technology. He responded that his publisher had erred and in fact his degree is from another, much less swanky, California school.

With senior academicians and scientists rarely punished, a dangerous precedent is set for generations to come (the aforementioned “following the master’s way”). How the Chinese government reacts to this trend will speak volumes about being seen as a collaborative world partner. To compete as a credible power in the global economy, they will need to create legitimate peer-review structures and consistently enforce them. However, as recent as this week, The New York Times reported that six men in Xinjiang, China were detained by police for an attack that left a journalist brain dead. The crusader, Song Hongjie, a correspondent for the Northern Xinjiang Morning Post, had a reputation for exposing corruption and wrongdoing. Other recent beatings included two Chinese science reporters who were known to expose academic fraud.

This is not a post affirming or condemning Chinese politics; rather, it is about understanding how the millenia-old culture and its emphasis on the practical and traditional must go through a constant meta-analytical process to maintain Confucius’ original vision (aptly captured in his maxim: Study without reflection is a waste. Reflection without study is a danger). Otherwise, bastardized by-products such as piracy, corruption, and fraud become the unintended norm and prevent China from moving forward. They can start by rethinking how to better evaluate student knowledge and skills.

Addendum: Nick Kristof wrote a spot-on article (China’s Winning Schools) about their education system soon after this post, asserting that their Confucian reverence for education is the best thing we can learn. However, many Chinese teachers are highly critical of its own system, pointing to the lack of self-reliance and creative development in students, as I alluded to above.

The latest results of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) merely confirm what pundits are saying about the burgeoning global dominance of China. In the past, South Korea, Finland, and Singapore have been the highest scorers in these international assessments of science, reading, and math literacy. They have been used as models of education reform and accomplishment, and have not disappointed this year, coming in near the top.

However, results from the latest global comparison, taken in 2009, show that China, (as represented by Shanghai students) earned #1 in reading, science, and math literacy (see chart). The United States came in unsurprisingly at 15th, 20th, and 30th, respectively. Hong Kong has also come to the fore, scoring at no worse than 4th in every category. A summary has been written about this in today’s New York Times article.

Is the U.S. ready to confront this reality? Or will our leaders engage in partisanship that further erode our confidence and progress? China has already recently surpassed Japan as the world’s second largest economy; with my post on China’s recent accomplishment building the world’s fastest supercomputer, is this further proof of China’s global rise? In the end, I believe that there is a strong separation between classes in China that will prevent them from fully dominating, with a robust emerging upper class that is beginning to embrace a consumption economy contrasted with a large population of manufacturing laborers and the uneducated. I’m curious to know what readers think.

In continuing to understand and improve the American economy, US News & World Report chief business correspondent Rick Newman provides four pragmatic lessons Americans can learn from Chinese consumers:

1. Don’t gorge on debt.

2. Paying for an indulgence means paying less for other goods.

3. Budget first, then buy second.

4. Research extensively to find the best quality and deals.

The point isn’t that these lessons are new, but that Americans have gotten away from sound fiscal habits. Compared to us, the Chinese are relatively new market consumers and are going through the early stages of the free market consumer mentality that we had in the 1950s; namely, careful and practical spending that is based on their means. More mature consumers of a free market economy tend to push those limits, as we have done; as a result, we have become a nation mired in consumer debt. As mentioned in a previous post, the solution for Americans is not to spend more, but rather to invest more in human capital to jolt the economy forward.

Newman’s simple and balanced perspective on Chinese spending brings to light what Americans already know, but need to return to. For more details, read his full article.

In a previous post, I had echoed the sentiments of certain analysts who believed that politicians (and many Americans) erroneously blamed China for American economic woes. Since then, pundits as Fareed Zakaria have asserted that the U.S. had to focus less on consuming and more on investing in itself, and that China was merely reaping the rewards of long term investments in its infrastructure and education. During a recent forum on climate change in Hong Kong, New York City mayor and business magnate Michael Bloomberg similarly questioned critics who blamed China’s “policy” of subsidizing clean energy exports to the U.S. while restricting imports. He contended that Americans need to examine itself and more importantly, bring back the work ethic that it once had and that characterizes many first generation immigrants to turn around the current decline:

“It is very dangerous for us as a society — I’m speaking of America — to focus on blaming others, because what you do then is you don’t focus on your own practices…The hard work [in Asian cultures, presumably] should be envied…Americans on average I’m not so sure they’re working as hard as they used to…We are becoming more dependent on entitlements and feel that society owes us.”

China, of course, has long held a Confucian work ethic that permeates its society, as detailed in Part 3 of the “Creating a Culture of Education” series. Bloomberg openly criticized the federal government’s decision to investigate China’s perceived violations of World Trade Organization rules, which many believe has led to a trade imbalance. He also excoriated newly elected senators and congressmen (many of whom also blamed China) for basically being uneducated:

“If you look at the U.S., you look at who we’re electing to Congress, to the Senate—they can’t read,” he said. “I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don’t have passports. We’re about to start a trade war with China if we’re not careful here,” he warned, “only because nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is.” (See Wall Street Journal blog article and video below).

The current scapegoating of China only magnifies the ignorance of a popular segment of American society. Bloomberg, both a moderate political figure and a private sector corporate mogul, is wise enough to know that a Keynesian perspective (i.e. that government and private sector are important balances for macroeconomic growth and stabilization) needs to be maintained. It is no coincidence that his administration includes some fairly aggressive and polarizing ideas for the “business side” (such as increasing city revenue by charging more for tolls, and suggesting a soda and cigarette tax) and for the government side (e.g., mandating lower salt content in foods and prohibiting smoking in public spaces). In maintaining that balanced perspective, Bloomberg also suggested that Hong Kong can learn from U.S. by opening itself more to immigrants, who would presumably bring diverse and innovative ideas.

It is worth repeating that a society will become educated and will make wise decisions about its future through lifelong learning and maintaining a broad perspective. Such investment is essential to ridding Americans of the blame mentality that is seen so much today.