ADVERTISEMENT

US Millennials post abysmal scores in tech skills test

Metuo Accipiter

HR Legend
Sep 15, 2003
20,548
1,779
113
Our public education system is literally killing the future of America.



There was this test. And it was daunting. It was like the SAT or ACT -- which many American millennials are no doubt familiar with, as they are on track to be the best educated generation in history -- except this test was not about getting into college. This exam, given in 23 countries, assessed the thinking abilities and workplace skills of adults. It focused on literacy, math and technological problem-solving. The goal was to figure out how prepared people are to work in a complex, modern society.
And U.S. millennials performed horribly.
That might even be an understatement, given the extent of the American shortcomings. No matter how you sliced the data - by class, by race, by education - young Americans were laggards compared to their international peers. In every subject, U.S. millennials ranked at the bottom or very close to it, according to a new study by testing company ETS.
"We were taken aback," said ETS researcher Anita Sands. "We tend to think millennials are really savvy in this area. But that's not what we are seeing."

The test is called the PIAAC test. It was developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, better known as the OECD. The test was meant to assess adult skill levels. It was administered worldwide to people ages 16 to 65. The results came out two years ago and barely caused a ripple. But recently ETS went back and delved into the data to look at how millennials did as a group. After all, they're the future - and, in America, they're poised to claim the title of largest generation from the baby boomers.
U.S. millennials, defined as people 16 to 34 years old, were supposed to be different. They're digital natives. They get it. High achievement is part of their makeup. But the ETS study found signs of trouble, with its authors warning that the nation was at a crossroads: "We can decide to accept the current levels of mediocrity and inequality or we can decide to address the skills challenge head on."
The challenge is that, in literacy, U.S. millennials scored higher than only three countries.
In math, Americans ranked last.
In technical problem-saving, they were second from the bottom.
"Abysmal," noted ETS researcher Madeline Goodman. "There was just no place where we performed well."

Technical skills test
 
This is also what you get, when you make it so it's 'fair' for everyone. We need to mix more private funding and entrepeneurship within the public school systems.

Government funded public education simply can't afford the technological training oppurtunities at a rate that would cover a high percentage of the public. We need to allow more privately ran and organized companies who specialize in these things to have more access to the students.

Not just in college atmospheres, but for High school students as well. Give them oppurtunities to perhaps, forgo some High School classes in an effort to let them receive training that will actually apply to the world as it is today.

We also need more practical training. The kind of training that shows students the actual skills that jobs require and want. College shouldn't be the only avenue for this.
 
Also, it would help if our system wasn't geared toward simply making sure people are prepared to work for other companies, and geared more towards encouraging entrepeneurship that lead to new businesses being created.

It seems to me that most college programs these days, lead directly to working with big companies that are already established. Which is fine if that is the route you want to go. It would be better though if we had educational programs, privately funded of course, that taught people how to truly run and start up their own businesses.

One problem with this though is the difficulty and complexity of actually gettting these things started. ESPECIALLY in the technical field where you have to jump through hoop, after hoop, and hope you don't accidentally get yourself in trouble by doing something illegal that gets you in trouble.
 
Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

It seems to me that most college programs these days, lead directly to working with big companies that are already established.
This is true. But the bigger problem is they are so far behind by the time they get to college it's difficult for the post-secondary schools to do anything to catch them up.

The real failure is taking place at the high school level and below.
 
Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

It seems to me that most college programs these days, lead directly to working with big companies that are already established.
This is true. But the bigger problem is they are so far behind by the time they get to college it's difficult for the post-secondary schools to do anything to catch them up.

The real failure is taking place at the high school level and below.
I think that the promise that a degree is guaranteed success also fails students. The real ins and outs of how companies run is usually taught from areas that most colleges don't cover. Think about IT certifications for one.
 
This is actually great news for our public educators. They will us this as ammunition to tell us how we need to "invest" more in public education. And therein lies the problem.
 
It's what we get for teaching more of the touchy-feely social stuff and not enough math and science.
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
It's what we get for teaching more of the touchy-feely social stuff and not enough math and science.
That's right. Schools in the US devote too much time to parenting. But, hey, that's what some among us want - e.g. It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
It's what we get for teaching more of the touchy-feely social stuff and not enough math and science.
I'd also say the failure is at the administrative level - not at the teaching level. For most part I think our teachers can be effective if given the opportunity - but the bureaucrats are hurting our schools by implementing agendas that don't benefit the kids.
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
It's what we get for teaching more of the touchy-feely social stuff and not enough math and science.
I thought our schools had been doing just as you suggest and teaching to the test for a decade now?
confused0024.r191677.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Your public school is only as good as the faculty.
Today, we do not have the dedication and energy
in our young teachers coming out of college. We
are not getting the best and the brightest teachers
in our class rooms. Today's students are not able
to learn from these apathetic teachers.
 
Originally posted by LuteHawk:

Your public school is only as good as the faculty.
Today, we do not have the dedication and energy
in our young teachers coming out of college. We
are not getting the best and the brightest teachers
in our class rooms. Today's students are not able
to learn from these apathetic teachers.
Public schools are almost entirely funded by tax money of course. This causes an inability to pay our teachers the money they should be getting, and therefore keep some of our brightest from wanting to teach in the public school systems.

Why deal with a job where you're constantly under the public microscope, subject to dealing with idiot parents who raise their idiot kids, and on top of that, you're not being paid at a level that gives you incentive to want to increase your abilities? Not to mention that the public schools as a whole have to operate under certain federal standards, which also limits many of their abilities.

There is a reason why Private schooling is the chosen type of education among those that can afford it through their success.
 
I'm going to ask a silly question...

Why do we even try to give all children the same education? I mean, if child A is a passing, yet mediocre student why do we not spend more time trying to get them the basics and a better mastery of them. If child B is a very strong student, with an obvious strength in one or a few areas, push them farther forward in those areas and quit worrying so much about the basics.

We, as a country, spend far more time trying to concentrate on the middle 80%, and in doing so we leave the bottom 10% behind and ignore the top 10% and hope they figure it out on their own. Instead there should eventually be a separation, where we try to make the bottom 30% into productive members of society, the next 50% into most anything they think they can be and the upper 20% into truly the best and the brightest. That separation may not come at the same points, but should come, and it should come well before college. Depending on the audience, possibly as early as middle school/Jr High age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought our schools had been doing just as you suggest and teaching to the test for a decade now?
confused0024.r191677.gif
Are you referring to Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind legislation?

It's funny how the left has entirely forgotten this bill was co-sponsored by two democrats, passed the House 384-45 and the Senate 91-8.

But to the low information types this is entirely a GOP initiative.
 
Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought our schools had been doing just as you suggest and teaching to the test for a decade now?
confused0024.r191677.gif
Are you referring to Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind legislation?

It's funny how the left has entirely forgotten this bill was co-sponsored by two democrats, passed the House 384-45 and the Senate 91-8.

But to the low information types this is entirely a GOP initiative.
Yes, thats what I'm referencing. So why isn't it working?
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Yes, thats what I'm referencing. So why isn't it working?
Are you saying the goal of No Child Left Behind was to raise our education levels against peer countries? And do you have any idea who the target audience of the act was?
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought our schools had been doing just as you suggest and teaching to the test for a decade now?
confused0024.r191677.gif
Are you referring to Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind legislation?

It's funny how the left has entirely forgotten this bill was co-sponsored by two democrats, passed the House 384-45 and the Senate 91-8.

But to the low information types this is entirely a GOP initiative.
Yes, thats what I'm referencing. So why isn't it working?
Because of people like you.
 
Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Yes, thats what I'm referencing. So why isn't it working?
Are you saying the goal of No Child Left Behind was to raise our education levels against peer countries? And do you have any idea who the target audience of the act was?
I'm willing to be educated. Can you provide some insight? It was my understanding that schools had shifted away from the "touchy-feely" subject matters to more focus on teaching fundamentals and testable basics. Is that not the case?
 
Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought our schools had been doing just as you suggest and teaching to the test for a decade now?
confused0024.r191677.gif
Are you referring to Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind legislation?

It's funny how the left has entirely forgotten this bill was co-sponsored by two democrats, passed the House 384-45 and the Senate 91-8.

But to the low information types this is entirely a GOP initiative.
Yes, thats what I'm referencing. So why isn't it working?
Because of people like you.
Probably. If society was made up of people like me, public schools would be empty.
 
Originally posted by LuteHawk:

Your public school is only as good as the faculty.
Today, we do not have the dedication and energy
in our young teachers coming out of college. We
are not getting the best and the brightest teachers
in our class rooms. Today's students are not able
to learn from these apathetic teachers.
It does seem like they get to screw a lot of them.
 
If you want to know why this is happening, look at their parents.

Right now, the bulk of the country's youths look up to the Kardashians more than their parents. Their goals for life are a tad bit...warped. That, and knowing how to operate an Xbox and cell phone are not exactly career building skills.


How all this happens is right there in their homes. Parents that give a crap...this is more likely not to happen. Parents that don't give a crap, this is the result.

Throwing more government money at it is categorically NOT the solution. In fact, it most likely will make matters worse.

I know I know...how dare me hold (gasp) the parents responsible for their children. It must be the government's fault in not spending enough cash on little Johnny and Sally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I'm willing to be educated. Can you provide some insight? It was my understanding that schools had shifted away from the "touchy-feely" subject matters to more focus on teaching fundamentals and testable basics. Is that not the case?
The controversy of the time was around students being pushed through school/graduating even though they could not read - especially in the worst/poorest urban areas. The teachers were willing just to push them on without taking accountability for the students. And thus, the push was to create an accountability system for the disadvantaged to ensure minimum education levels were reached.
 
Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I'm willing to be educated. Can you provide some insight? It was my understanding that schools had shifted away from the "touchy-feely" subject matters to more focus on teaching fundamentals and testable basics. Is that not the case?
The controversy of the time was around students being pushed through school/graduating even though they could not read - especially in the worst/poorest urban areas. The teachers were willing just to push them on without taking accountability for the students. And thus, the push was to create an accountability system for the disadvantaged to ensure minimum education levels were reached.
So am I correct that schools are now focusing more on teaching basic fundamentals so that they can pass these accountability tests?
 
Did anyone look at the sample questions liked in the article?!?? The "Level 4" question is all about reading internet search results. If that's toward the difficult end, wow.... But I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the way articles and information are just thrown out on here
 
High school students should take classes in math, science, and English all four years. No four semesters and you are done with a subject. Doesn't have to be trig or calculus but we need math.

English is for proper communications skills aside from twitter jargon. Know the rules of intelligently writing or speaking your native language. Know what jargon means. Two years of a foreign language would also help, not Latin. Latin can be very helpful but it is not a modern foreign language, should be an elective. Of course there would be fewer electives.

This is in high school. When they get to college they can take "Ancient Athletics" or "Relaxation Techniques" or any class with "Popular Culture" in the title.
 
Originally posted by rchawk:

High school students should take classes in math, science, and English all four years. No four semesters and you are done with a subject. Doesn't have to be trig or calculus but we need math.

English is for proper communications skills aside from twitter jargon. Know the rules of intelligently writing or speaking your native language. Know what jargon means. Two years of a foreign language would also help, not Latin. Latin can be very helpful but it is not a modern foreign language, should be an elective. Of course there would be fewer electives.

This is in high school. When they get to college they can take "Ancient Athletics" or "Relaxation Techniques" or any class with "Popular Culture" in the title.
Isn't this reality today by in large?
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by rchawk:

High school students should take classes in math, science, and English all four years. No four semesters and you are done with a subject. Doesn't have to be trig or calculus but we need math.

English is for proper communications skills aside from twitter jargon. Know the rules of intelligently writing or speaking your native language. Know what jargon means. Two years of a foreign language would also help, not Latin. Latin can be very helpful but it is not a modern foreign language, should be an elective. Of course there would be fewer electives.

This is in high school. When they get to college they can take "Ancient Athletics" or "Relaxation Techniques" or any class with "Popular Culture" in the title.
Isn't this reality today by in large?
It's "by and large," you could have used another semester or two of English. A high school teacher can chime in here about what he believes should be required for graduation- so his students can succeed in the world.
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by rchawk:

High school students should take classes in math, science, and English all four years. No four semesters and you are done with a subject. Doesn't have to be trig or calculus but we need math.

English is for proper communications skills aside from twitter jargon. Know the rules of intelligently writing or speaking your native language. Know what jargon means. Two years of a foreign language would also help, not Latin. Latin can be very helpful but it is not a modern foreign language, should be an elective. Of course there would be fewer electives.

This is in high school. When they get to college they can take "Ancient Athletics" or "Relaxation Techniques" or any class with "Popular Culture" in the title.
Isn't this reality today by in large?
**sigh** Yes it is. And for those schools which it is not, many colleges and universities require it for entrance. Of course, when governors get together to toughen such standards and strengthen the types of skills being taught, it is deemed a federal takeover by the 'socialist-in-chief' (though the tests for such standards such be diagnostic, not deterministic). What I learned as a past educator was that those who complained most about public education had little to no understanding as to where the power resided in the decisions being made as to what was being taught and, generally, would find something else to complain about even when their complaints were addressed (or simply claim that steps taken still did little to meet their demands). Teachers aren't hard to come by because the pay is too low (in many cases, with benefits included, it is a good job). The teacher pool is drying up because the profession is more often viewed by outsiders as something to do when you aren't smart or talented enough to get a 'real' job. "Those who can't do, teach," as the saying goes, and more and more college graduates are uninterested in entering into a career with such a growing stigma.
 
The test is available ... or at least what they call an "online version" of the test is online.

The first hurdle requires you to download Firefox if you do not have it installed, since that is the only browser that supports the test.

Maybe I will do that later. Maybe I won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Originally posted by rchawk:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Originally posted by rchawk:

High school students should take classes in math, science, and English all four years. No four semesters and you are done with a subject. Doesn't have to be trig or calculus but we need math.

English is for proper communications skills aside from twitter jargon. Know the rules of intelligently writing or speaking your native language. Know what jargon means. Two years of a foreign language would also help, not Latin. Latin can be very helpful but it is not a modern foreign language, should be an elective. Of course there would be fewer electives.

This is in high school. When they get to college they can take "Ancient Athletics" or "Relaxation Techniques" or any class with "Popular Culture" in the title.
Isn't this reality today by in large?
It's "by and large," you could have used another semester or two of English. A high school teacher can chime in here about what he believes should be required for graduation- so his students can succeed in the world.
So you start out tilting at windmills. I point that out. Your response is to tilt at a new windmill. This nicely illustrates my point in this thread that we are too focused on the fundamental basics and are losing the critical thinking and problem solving skills that some like to call that "touchy-feely" stuff. But thank you for the correction all the same, I feel smarter already.
 
From the copy and pasted OP version of the article (nobody caught this?):

"In technical problem-saving, they were second from the bottom."

A typo in an article pointing out our failing educational system. Nice
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
ADVERTISEMENT