The Future of China?, Where India left in dust? Options

[richasiankid]

Some rhapsodise just how great India will thrive on multi-religious democracy (unlike Israel or mid east). Others fancy India becoming like HK or S'pore securing itself via English facility against evil Sinic hegemony.

But in the end it's a lesson where everything's sweet & swell India where it doesn't measure up, where it still can't even secure the basics and where human capital matters:

http://www.zshare.net/download/97642747c4df52c8/ (light end of tunnel; patience patience!)

PISA 2009 report for (against?) India?

Cities of India are still at the very very bottom, while cities like Shanghai are wowwing off the charts.

Yet another data point we're different.....

[Hugham]

zshare.com is bad site, I fail to download from it multiple times.

Can you upload it to the more friendly site like mediafire.com?

Thank you.

[richasiankid]

zshare.com is bad site, I fail to download from it multiple times.

Can you upload it to the more friendly site like mediafire.com?

Thank you.

No worries. Here's the same file from mediafire.

And here're the relevant data in case you still can't access it:

(1) Reading



(2) Science



(3) Math



Note more the distribution than the average.

* * *
PS- I always give credit when it's due and I give Steve Sailer credit from America who pointed out the obvious here.

The news that two states in India took the PISA test of 15-year-olds' school achievement in 2009 and bombed raises the question once again of China. As everybody remembers from a year ago, 2009 scores from Shanghai were released and they were higher than any country in the world. But what about the rest of China? Obviously, Shanghai is a dazzling place, but a lot of China is still stuck knee-deep in rice paddies. What about them?

I stumbled upon this year-old blog post by Anatoly Karlin of Sublime Oblivion, which relays a big hint:

As regular blog readers know, I think that educational capital and more broadly average IQ levels are one of the key – and frequently under-appreciated due to political correctness – determinants of economic development and whether or not convergence to developed country levels is even possible. Its much higher educational capital is one of the key reasons why I think China will continue doing much better than India in development, regardless of its “democratic deficit.” However, many people argue that China’s human capital must actually be quite low, because it doesn’t spend much on education, resources are bare in the provinces, statistical fudging under unaccountable governors, etc.
The recent results from the international standardized PISA tests in math, reading and science will make this an increasingly untenable position. Shanghai got by far the best results out of all the OECD countries (never mind the developing ones). . Now while you might (rightly) argue Shanghai draws much of the elite of the Yangtze river delta, the Financial Times has more: “Citing further, as-yet unpublished OECD research, Mr Schleicher said: “We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average.””

Since countries like the US and France get scores “close to the OECD average”, this means that the workforces soon to be entering China’s economy, even from its poorest regions, will be no less skilled than those of leading Western economies (note too that the numbers of Chinese university graduates are soaring). And with China’s massive population, four times bigger than America’s, its road to superpowerdom must be all but guaranteed.

Okay, there are a few leaps of faith there, but that's still news worth knowing. At minimum, it reduces the chances that the Shanghai numbers were a con job. At median, it suggests that we check twice before reflexively equating China and India. At maximum, it suggests, as Karlin says, that "resource constraints" are going to be perhaps the big issue of the 21st Century. It's a little hard to be certain what "Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average" means, but it sounds pretty good.

The logic of using international test scores to predict future wealth is not that the causation runs only in one direction, from high test scores to wealth. Obviously, it runs in both directions. (For example, affluent Chinese have traditionally hired tutors to raise their children's test results.) But, if there are a whole bunch of poor farm kids in inland China who are scoring like kids in Europe and North America right now, well, that's worth knowing.

My only comment is perhaps, just perhaps, environment doesn't mean everything. Why, afterall, is Japan and indeed Taiwan or HOng Kong don't score as high as poorer Shanghai?

Don't miss the comments.

[Hugham]

Quite surprising or not quite surprising at all about India?

I wonder what is actually going on in India?

They have a very glorious past, I wonder what is so difficult for them to organize good national wide education?

Is India problem in the corruption or in the inability of the Indian people itself?

If corruption is the problem, how can they have almost the same rank with China in corruption index level? (and in some report better than China?)

the Financial Times has more: “Citing further, as-yet unpublished OECD research, Mr Schleicher said: “We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average.””

I wonder when will OECD publish China 12 provinces result?

Does someone has the data here?

I can't wait to see the data!!!

[richasiankid]

Quite surprising or not quite surprising at all about India?

I wonder what is actually going on in India?

They have a very glorious past, I wonder what is so difficult for them to organize good national wide education?

Is India problem in the corruption or in the inability of the Indian people itself?

If corruption is the problem, how can they have almost the same rank with China in corruption index level? (and in some report better than China?)

I've seen comments on India's one problem being diversity, at least intellectually, i.e. you can't have a nation-wide coherent education policy if people are different to begin with (much like where America's heading today with blacks and browns). Thus India may hone in on that tiny razor-thin layer of elites and milk the best leaving dust to the rest.

At least that's theory.

Yet, at the same time, and as I pointed out, if you look back at the proportions from PISA I just quoted - you actually do not see an elite dragged down by illiterates; most of them are practically, well, dunces. I think this collective lack of human capital - in spite of some H1B exceptions - is a question Indians will have to ask themselves.

Another related but not totally unrelated question to ponder: how is it possible that India with all its headstart - i.e. all those Brit style institutions, English facility, as well as democracy - wind up being so far behind China? It's a very very inconvenient data point for some. How can India doing everything right and yet not overtake China? Afterall, think Hong Kong: it's not quite "democracy" but at least the former two variables in some ways prevailed. Again that's just not the case for India.

And never mind Brits but not even American free-style markets helped when India opened up - i.e. when conditions are supposed to have equalized - look at the now famous Indian-Chinese trajectory on a log scale: they're drifting apart even as way back as in 1990s when India supposedly to have been burdened by late-start in liberalization:

Which btw is what an Economist article from Dec 12th sort of suggested again anyway.

Still?

But perhaps especially in retrospect....

I wonder when will OECD publish China 12 provinces result?

Does someone has the data here?

I can't wait to see the data!!!

Neither do I, but knowledge is certainly preferable than spin or ignorance, and I would also bet they will score lower than Shanghai, but certainly not as abysmal and frankly shameful levels as India's debut (unlike Shanghai's). There is at least one small study which shows Tibetan children having lower intellectual potential than Han Chinese that I'm aware of, and given a country as huge as China's I wouldn't be surprised if there are geographic variations/differences where non-Han do not score at equal levels as Han.

For the basic education, probably Shanghai education is quite well.

But in the higher education or real education related to real application, teach in university level, like making car, video games, architecture, etc.

We are still lack far behind......

I think the crude nouveau riche mentality of industrial America +/- mass production resonated in 19th century aristocratic British minds as well; I do also think China is not without precedent in East Asia.