NationStates Jolt Archive

I come across a certain attitude quite often; one that most often hasn't been developed consciously, or has even been examined by the people holding it. It's more of an assumption, a sense, something that 'just is' until actually brought out and eyeballed. I'm talking about the belief among people in the 'first world' (or developed world or minority world or global north, whichever term you prefer) that everything in the 'third world' (or developing/majority/ global south) is 'less good'.

People often assume that, for example, the education system in all of the 'developing world' is not nearly as good as it is in the developed world. Chile is lumped in with Sierra Leone for example. Oh, you might know nothing about the actual education system in either of those countries, but it appears obvious that it can't be as good as say...Canada...because then they probably wouldn't be 'third world', right?

Overall, there might be more literate, or highly educated people in the 'first world'...but one also needs to take into account the many highly skilled and educated people who come to the first world because of lack of opportunity in their own nations. The Philippines, for example, 'exports' many highly trained medical staff to first world nations. Meanwhile, there are school systems in Canada that are an absolute embarrassment...whose children perform at levels far below some children in the third world.

The point is not to just beat on the first world...it is to recognise that we can't just sit, feeling all superior, while our various essential systems go to shit. Having a vague sense of 'we're on top' just doesn't cut it. It's complacent, and it's fucking annoying. So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?

I can't recall ever even using the term 'First World', so the answer has to be "No"...

:rolleyes:
Right, you're so enlightened that none of this could possibly apply to you.

I come across a certain attitude quite often; one that most often hasn't been developed consciously, or has even been examined by the people holding it. It's more of an assumption, a sense, something that 'just is' until actually brought out and eyeballed. I'm talking about the belief among people in the 'first world' (or developed world or minority world or global north, whichever term you prefer) that everything in the 'third world' (or developing/majority/ global south) is 'less good'.

People often assume that, for example, the education system in all of the 'developing world' is not nearly as good as it is in the developed world. Chile is lumped in with Sierra Leone for example. Oh, you might know nothing about the actual education system in either of those countries, but it appears obvious that it can't be as good as say...Canada...because then they probably wouldn't be 'third world', right?

Overall, there might be more literate, or highly educated people in the 'first world'...but one also needs to take into account the many highly skilled and educated people who come to the first world because of lack of opportunity in their own nations. The Philippines, for example, 'exports' many highly trained medical staff to first world nations. Meanwhile, there are school systems in Canada that are an absolute embarrassment...whose children perform at levels far below some children in the third world.

The point is not to just beat on the first world...it is to recognise that we can't just sit, feeling all superior, while our various essential systems go to shit. Having a vague sense of 'we're on top' just doesn't cut it. It's complacent, and it's fucking annoying. So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?

This is true for many things.

People are far too quick to assume that they know what is best for others.

I can't recall ever even using the term 'First World', so the answer has to be "No"...

I come across a certain attitude quite often; one that most often hasn't been developed consciously, or has even been examined by the people holding it. ...
...So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?

I find I prefer to live in places where every medical condition is not treated with cow manure and witchcraft. Or just not treated at all. Having been to a number of third world countries, I AM pretty secure in the knowledge that "it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'".

I'm willing to admit that there may be exceptions, but there are always exceptions.

Ahhh we are all guilty of making assumptions. *shrug*

I find I prefer to live in places where every medical condition is not treated with cow manure and witchcraft. Or just not treated at all. Having been to a number of third world countries, I AM pretty secure in the knowledge that "it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'".

Riiiiight.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Have you ever been treated in Chile? How about Brazil? Morocco?

This stupid, xenophobic generalisation that all countries not labelled 'first world' treat you with cow manure and witchcraft is beyond ridiculous even with only minor reflection. Yet you feel confident enough to express it as truth. You haven't challenged anything, you've validated your assumptions...why? Is it because you feel uncomfortable with the idea that just maybe things aren't so absolutely better in your county than in others?

Your 'security' is nothing of the sort. You cling to it with the tenacity of the willifully blind, and it is exactly that attitude the fosters the compacency that allows our education systems etc to go straight into the gutter.

Careful...the third world might catch up while you're busy patting yourself on the back.

Oh, nice edit by the way. "It might not be universally true, but it's clearly mostly true."

I see. Are you okay?
You're right to a point many people do assume some things without checking them and it can be insulting. But there are good reasons for this it's called inductive reasoning, we make it all the time, it's what humans do.
As some people are too busy to check thier opinions. It's like waking up every morning, you assume the sun will rise again as it has done every other morning, but doesn't mean it will rise every morning.
It might also have something to do with poor education, or move in particular social circles which might exclude certain types of thinking as "uncool", which is how racism can become a problem in some societies.

As for the education thing i agree just because a nation might be considered first world, doesn't give them the right to look down on others. It's only first wold in comparison to other countries, this isn't necessarily a reflection of the people themselves or the social issues within that country.
And there are many issues in the First World, more illnesses are self inflicted, such as binge drinking, overeating and an increase in a medicalisation in the First world, the belief that science can solve all problems.
So to conclude people make inductive reasoning all the time, as it's impossible to be up to date on events all the time, even more so if you're socially excluded or have family problems, which is more evident in the poorer parts of Western society.
There might be a recognised feeling of superiority over "third world" countries, but as social integration increases hopefully this feeling might dissipate sooner rather than later.

Riiiiight.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Have you ever been treated in Chile? How about Brazil? Morocco?

This stupid, xenophobic generalisation that all countries not labelled 'first world' treat you with cow manure and witchcraft is beyond ridiculous even with only minor reflection. Yet you feel confident enough to express it as truth. You haven't challenged anything, you've validated your assumptions...why? Is it because you feel uncomfortable with the idea that just maybe things aren't so absolutely better in your county than in others?

Your 'security' is nothing of the sort. You cling to it with the tenacity of the willifully blind, and it is exactly that attitude the fosters the compacency that allows our education systems etc to go straight into the gutter.

Careful...the third world might catch up while you're busy patting yourself on the back.

A very good point, it is my understanding that the medical teaching facilities in some parts of South America are way above average for the rest of the 'developed' world, for some reason the word Venuswayla (spelt wrong) seems to touch a deep rooted memory?

I find I prefer to live in places where every medical condition is not treated with cow manure and witchcraft. Or just not treated at all. Having been to a number of third world countries, I AM pretty secure in the knowledge that "it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'".

See folks, this is the kind of assumption highlighted in the OP. Myrmy is making the assumption that all third world countries are like the ones he visited. He is also assuming that we'll believe him when he claims to have been in the thrid world.

I'm willing to admit that there may be exceptions, but there are always exceptions.

I find it exceptional that people are able to maintain their ignorance after having travelled to other countries...

I find it exceptional that people are able to maintain their ignorance after having travelled to other countries...

Hence my use of the term 'willfully blind'. Assuming he has in fact travelled abroad, he has somehow managed to see only what he wants to see.

A very good point, it is my understanding that the medical teaching facilities in some parts of South America are way above average for the rest of the 'developed' world, for some reason the word Venuswayla (spelt wrong) seems to touch a deep rooted memory?

Cuba has a very highly regarded healthcare system

To be honest, I find this assumption as prevalent in supposedly liberal and progressive circles. The idea that we are supposed to go down to those other countries and help out and bring them up to our standard of living is kinda nice if you don't think about it too much.

But once you start critically examining that paradigm, you realise it's just more paternalist bullshit. More of that 'white man's burden' crap. Why should some white pop singer ask some European politician "what are we going to do about Africa?"? That question operates under the assumption that Africans can't solve these problems by themselves. How wonderfully and subtly racist. And you get to tell yourself that you're 'helping' them.

When I went to Cuba, I got an earful of this crap from some hippies that were there. How they were going to help the Cubans by showing them how to grow organic food and live on a vegan diet. They never asked about how the Cuban economy manages to import food, or how Cubans grow their own. It was assumed that a bunch of Canadian hippies would know better than the locals. Thanks for helping out, guys.

Just like the USA has helped in Iraq and Vietnam and throughout Latin America. Just like the French in Africa and Asia. The British with their global empire. And now we do it again with foreign aid packages that are tied to the donor country's economy. We impose neoliberal trade policies without regard for local traditions in order to 'boost their economy'. I could go on and on.

actually Neesika, the assumption is "my [whatever] is better than..."

it's not just a phenomenom of "first world" to "Third world" but everywhere.

"My country is better because it doesn't pollute the environment"
"My Country is better because we have/don't have true Democracy"
"My country is better because hard work is rewarded and if one does not work, then one does not eat."
"My country is better because we did(n't) elect George Bush Jr."
"My Country is better because we don't/do have capital punishment"
"My Country is better because we respect human rights"
etc...

so it's not just a one way thing. it's everywhere.

I see. Are you okay?
You're right to a point many people do assume some things without checking them and it can be insulting. But there are good reasons for this it's called inductive reasoning, we make it all the time, it's what humans do.

Yes, very nice. But it doesn't justify the 'first world syndrome'...a sense of superiority fostered since childhood.

It extends to even the smallest things. Food in the first world is obviously more delicious than food in the third world. Our cuisine is the finest. Really? Have you ever had a casuela in Pichelemu? Free-range chicken, deliciously fresh, locally grown vegetables...a flavour that exceeds any Canadian attempts. Vegetables that have been allowed to ripen naturally, instead of being picked prematurely and shipped in cold containers, thousands of kilometres...

The thing is, it's rather sad. People who travel are often so shocked at the quality of the food/goods/education/health care etc in the countries they visit. Granted, in some countries this can all vary drastically depending on where you are, and what social class you've been invited into. But the fact that is it SO shocking is disturbing. It means that you've accepted everything around you as being 'the best', and you no longer look for improvement.

Coming back to Canada is often very hard for me...because once again I have to eat food that is substandard because of necessity. We can't have fresh, really ripe mangoes here. That's just a function of our climate. But it's hard to deal with, when suddenly, your chicken soups are tasting blah again.

It extends to other things as well...the best dental work I've ever had was in Chile...I've had nothing but nightmare experiences in Canada. If I clung to the idea that dental care in Canada was 'the best'...I wouldn't expect better, and I wouldn't challenge my treatment.

actually Neesika, the assumption is "my [whatever] is better than..."

it's not just a phenomenom of "first world" to "Third world" but everywhere.

"My country is better because it doesn't pollute the environment"
"My Country is better because we have/don't have true Democracy"
"My country is better because hard work is rewarded and if one does not work, then one does not eat."
"My country is better because we did(n't) elect George Bush Jr."
"My Country is better because we don't/do have capital punishment"
"My Country is better because we respect human rights"
etc...

so it's not just a one way thing. it's everywhere.

When the 'first world' has the power to radically influence the economies of the 'third world', it becomes less important that this is a universal condition. Sierra Leonians making assumptions about Canada will not impact our domestic policies or economy. The reverse is not true.

I don't care that everyone is stupid. I'm asking you to be less stupid. I think it's a reasonable request.

Cuba has a very highly regarded healthcare system

Ahhh many thanks, it was indeed Cuba I was thinking of.

My country is better because it has pinstripes. :)

My country is better because it has pinstripes. :)

Which as we all know were actually invented in my country.:D

My country is better because it has pinstripes. :)

My country is better because we have digital watches.
My country is better because we have bread and butter pudding.
My country is worse because the weather can be really boring.
My country is worse because there is an overflow of bureaucracy.

By the way these arbitary claims are not for debate they are as certain as i know the sun is yellow and that illuminous sundials will never sell to rational people. And no you're not allowed to say the sun is not yellow, because because it it just is. erm yeah what was i talking about again?

This system of beliefs is worst when, as GoG has pointed out, it informs aid efforts. There have been many terrible examples of inappropriate aid, inappropriate nutritional exchanges or technologies or health-care methods introduced into areas based on 'well it's First World stuff, therefore inherently better'. Having people exchange food crops for cash crops so they can buy genetically modified rice instead of the more varied crops they once grew (and that provided a wider range of nutrition), for example. Or sending the world's techno-trash to the third world (old computers etc)...where quite often they can't be used anyway.

But less drastic than that...it narrows your horizons. Go out, travel, learn a little. You can't do that if you closed-mindedly believe your society is the last word on everything.

That kind of attitude also means that you are not open to the possibility that 'third world nations' might have something to teach you.

I come across a certain attitude quite often; one that most often hasn't been developed consciously, or has even been examined by the people holding it. It's more of an assumption, a sense, something that 'just is' until actually brought out and eyeballed. I'm talking about the belief among people in the 'first world' (or developed world or minority world or global north, whichever term you prefer) that everything in the 'third world' (or developing/majority/ global south) is 'less good'.

People often assume that, for example, the education system in all of the 'developing world' is not nearly as good as it is in the developed world. Chile is lumped in with Sierra Leone for example. Oh, you might know nothing about the actual education system in either of those countries, but it appears obvious that it can't be as good as say...Canada...because then they probably wouldn't be 'third world', right?

Overall, there might be more literate, or highly educated people in the 'first world'...but one also needs to take into account the many highly skilled and educated people who come to the first world because of lack of opportunity in their own nations. The Philippines, for example, 'exports' many highly trained medical staff to first world nations. Meanwhile, there are school systems in Canada that are an absolute embarrassment...whose children perform at levels far below some children in the third world.

The point is not to just beat on the first world...it is to recognise that we can't just sit, feeling all superior, while our various essential systems go to shit. Having a vague sense of 'we're on top' just doesn't cut it. It's complacent, and it's fucking annoying. So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?

Given what's been happening to education in the United States (the Every Child Except the Wealthy Left Behind system - Damn you Bush!), I wouldn't even think of criticizing another country's system.

Given what's been happening to education in the United States (the Every Child Except the Wealthy Left Behind system - Damn you Bush!), I wouldn't even think of criticizing another country's system.

I would never say you shouldn't criticize another country's education system, or anything else about that country for that matter. Rather, I'm asking that people not passively believe, without any investigation into the matter, that everything in their country is #1, and everything in other countries is lesser.

Go hard, criticize the education system in any country you want...but back it up with an understanding of your own system, as compared to that system, in real terms.

I know from experience how bad third-world education is. I got mine from the Missouri public schools.

except your whole premise is that people from "first world" countries think that their country and their acheivements are better. your OP has nothing about Political and Economic influences one nation would have on others.

I think it's more about letting off steam.
I don't think the OP said all people only some people, who have arrogant assumptions about other countries without ever visiting them, hell i'm one of them i make assumptions about the US all the time but i've never been there.

Riiiiight.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Have you ever been treated in Chile? How about Brazil? Morocco?

This stupid, xenophobic generalisation that all countries not labelled 'first world' treat you with cow manure and witchcraft is beyond ridiculous even with only minor reflection. Yet you feel confident enough to express it as truth. You haven't challenged anything, you've validated your assumptions...why? Is it because you feel uncomfortable with the idea that just maybe things aren't so absolutely better in your county than in others?

When I was in Nigeria and complained about a sore knee, one of the workers we had hired offered up just that. He was going to chant something, while rubbing some kind of excrement on my knee. Yeah, I could have found a doctor in Abuja, but he wasn't going to be doing any MRI.

Or it could have been like the time I was in India. One of our local workers cut his hand badly enough that it looked like it needed stitches. I went with him to the hospital so I could cover the bill for the company. One problem. The hospital was closed. We tightened up the bandage and asked the guard -- "What if he needed a doctor badly?". The answer wasn't that surprising. "Then he dies," the guard replied.

Or it could be like the time I was in Pakistan and had a broken tooth...

The list is pretty long. The point is manure might have been the least harmful of all the treatments I could have received, but no where near the correct. You may claim that I'm opinionated and an ugly American, but whatever you do, don't attack me for ignorance and inexperience. I'm starting on my third passport in six years because the visa pages have been filled. That doesn't even start to cover the travel I had while in the Marine Corps.

And I like Chile and Brazil. I just don't want to live there. That's why there are foreign vacations -- they make you very happy to be from where you are from. I find that's true, even from state to state. A prolonged visit to California makes me quite happy to return to the red clay of Georgia.


Your 'security' is nothing of the sort. You cling to it with the tenacity of the willifully blind, and it is exactly that attitude the fosters the compacency that allows our education systems etc to go straight into the gutter.

Careful...the third world might catch up while you're busy patting yourself on the back.

Oh, nice edit by the way. "It might not be universally true, but it's clearly mostly true."
As far as education goes, I got my degrees from two of the better known universities in the nation. In all my graduating classes, there were quite a number of third-worlders present. If the education is so great in Sierra Leone, why aren't people flocking to that little piece of nowhere to get degrees?

Wait I know!

Because the degrees aren't worth the money it takes to get there. That's why.

Take your whining to somewhere else.

When the 'first world' has the power to radically influence the economies of the 'third world', it becomes less important that this is a universal condition. Sierra Leonians making assumptions about Canada will not impact our domestic policies or economy. The reverse is not true.

I don't care that everyone is stupid. I'm asking you to be less stupid. I think it's a reasonable request.

except your whole premise is that people from "first world" countries think that their country and their acheivements are better. your OP has nothing about Political and Economic influences one nation would have on others.

The first world is superior because it's where I am, and I am superior.

I'm too lazy to make assumptions.

...snip worthless anecdotes...

Illustrating why you carry around such ignorant assumptions does not make such assumptions logical, intelligent or moral.

The list is pretty long. The point is manure might have been the least harmful of all the treatments I could have received, but no where near the correct. You may claim that I'm opinionated and an ugly American, but whatever you do, don't attack me for ignorance and inexperience. I'm starting on my third passport in six years because the visa pages have been filled. That doesn't even start to cover the travel I had while in the Marine Corps.

Actaully, I think Neesika was attacking you because you are ignorant despite travelling.

And I like Chile and Brazil. I just don't want to live there. That's why there are foreign vacations -- they make you very happy to be from where you are from. I find that's true, even from state to state. A prolonged visit to California makes me quite happy to return to the red clay of Georgia.

That's nice. It has nothing to do with the topic.

As far as education goes, I got my degrees from two of the better known universities in the nation. In all my graduating classes, there were quite a number of third-worlders present. If the education is so great in Sierra Leone, why aren't people flocking to that little piece of nowhere to get degrees?

Wait I know!

Because the degrees aren't worth the money it takes to get there. That's why.

The funny thing is that you make this argument without knowing how good the Sierra Leone educational system is. It could be awesome. It could suck. You don't know. By attempting to justify your ignorance, you reveal it again.

Take your whining to somewhere else.

But you are such a wonderful example of this type of ignorance, lover of Patroclus.

Actaully, I think Neesika was attacking you because you are ignorant despite travelling.

No, I think it's because I don't agree with her. But she can answer for herself.


The funny thing is that you make this argument without knowing how good the Sierra Leone educational system is. It could be awesome. It could suck. You don't know. By attempting to justify your ignorance, you reveal it again.

Here's where the market speaks for me... If the degrees offered by higher education in Sierra Leone were valuable, then we would see many more people attending them. It would be more like the colleges and universities in the U.S. People would come from far, far away just to get that degree with the value.

I don't have to know how good the education is in Sierra Leone, all I need to know is that it isn't worth the price that's required to get it.

except your whole premise is that people from "first world" countries think that their country and their acheivements are better. your OP has nothing about Political and Economic influences one nation would have on others.

Yes, how dare I expand on the OP in any manner. Sorry. I will confine myself to only discussing how everyone makes assumptions about everyone else, and we can wrap the thread up in a few more posts by nodding and agreeing.

-snip-
I am more than happy to acknowledge that there is much in what we have termed "the Third World" that is of a quality that cannot be found elsewhere. To be immensely broad-brush by example, by not joining in with the globalisation movement to the same extent, third world countries retain a sense of art and culture very distinct and thought-provoking compared to our mass-media, and probably a much better grasp of life skills than our sheltered academia will ever teach us. Obviously they won't be exposed to the facts of western history, and not as many will be given the insight into the workings of quantum mechanics, drug production or economics, but these are almost arbitrary items of knowledge, and it is very much the case that given the opportunity and resources, people from developing nations can still pick these things up and absorb them just as well as if not better than many from more developed countries.

My concern is that there are fewer such opportunities and limited resources for kids from "the Third World", and I feel this statement to be an observation rather than an assumption. In its relative poverty, few young adults can afford to spend years abroad picking up the skills that would help with long-term economic growth and the establishment and management of effective public services; which they must (if they want to gain them), because there aren't enough people who have done so that are in a position to provide the necessary specialist education. Combined with the corporate and militaristic abuse of resources that are known to maintain a nation's poverty, the fact remains that there is still a distinct difference between the standard of living in some parts of the world and that of others. I certainly don't think saying "Global poverty is a lie; everyone in Africa is fine" is a fair description of the state of affairs, in any case.

If you want my opinion, I would strongly encourage the provision of free education by the first world with no conditions on nationality (I have my own views about how this can be brought into fruition, though my approval of government control of corporate bodies means I'm on many economists' naughty lists). In this way, the distinction between Third and First worlds in terms of the available skills resource is severely diminished without any sense of the old "White man's burden" paradigm. It may just be a pipe dream, but given that our other best idea so far is "Fair Trade" (nice in itself, but given that it runs in parallel to existing traders...), I think we could do with a bit of creative idealism here.

Here's where the market speaks for me... If the degrees offered by higher education in Sierra Leone were valuable, then we would see many more people attending them. It would be more like the colleges and universities in the U.S. People would come from far, far away just to get that degree with the value.

I don't have to know how good the education is in Sierra Leone, all I need to know is that it isn't worth the price that's required to get it.

The point is that you haven't even bothered to look. You haven't checked to see if medical educations from Sierra Leone are in high demand. You are assuming this. Again, your attempts to justify your ignorance simply reveal it more.

Keep going. I am enjoying this.

bleh, my country's not the best, certainly not in terms of healthcare or education and i wouldn't say any country has the best cuisine since it varies so much. but then i know fuck all about the health care systems of pretty much any other country than here i just hope that somewhere it's better, it has to be. i know cuba's got a pretty good thing going there.

as for education i remember noticing some pretty good literacy rate figures for somewhere in africa a while ago and thinking "fuck, all you hear about africa is people shooting each other and dying of AIDS and dysentry and shit you never imagine they'd find a chance to get an education around all that". so yeah, when your only source of info about these places is from news companies run by people with these very delusions you're highlighting it's pretty difficult to actually get a proper impression of the place without actually going there.

and food, well, every trip to the supermarket for me is an exercise in futility trying to find something that looks appetizing or even fucking edible some of the time. my main motivation for wanting to travel is to find some decent food. and yeh, the best food i've eaten has been from 'less developed' countries. although to be fair to this place, i do like a lot of the cuisine (there's nothing like a full scottish breakfast, apart from a full english or irish :P, or a proper mutton pie, or fried haddock and chunky chips), if only the ingredients were properly fresh. i miss my mum's kitchen garden often, her tomatoes are just fucking beautiful, they make supermarket ones taste like acid soaked cardboard. and broad beans, you just can't get nice broad beans in a supermarket.

If we didn't have anything to learn from third world savages, then drug companies wouldn't be researching their natural medicines and applying the findings to pharmaceuticals for the first world. It's the so-called first world that is barely catching on to many things that are ancient knowledge and finally taking advantage of the tremendous benefits of plant medicines and things like mind-body health. Things such as aroma therapy, light therapy, sound therapy, meditation and what not are making their way into hospitals and have shown to give tremendous benefits to patients.

The point is that you haven't even bothered to look. You haven't checked to see if medical educations from Sierra Leone are in high demand. You are assuming this. Again, your attempts to justify your ignorance simply reveal it more.

Keep going. I am enjoying this.

OR he could be assuming, like I am, that a country that as recently as 2002 that was engaged in a massive civil war, that displaced millions, killed hundreds of thousands, and wounded countless more might not have the best education system in the world. I am sorry if my horrible assumption is wrong, in which case I am very happy for the Sieraa Lieonean people, as well as awed by their ability to come together and to so rapidly rebuild their country to a point that they have managed to outpace the universities in the U.S. I checked on wikipedia after I wrote that last sentence, and from what I can tell, its pretty good for a country just re-emerging from devestation. I suppose the diamonds helped, as well as some other things that I just learned were unique to Sierra Lieone. But it says nothing that would indicate a flat-out miraculous turnaround in the Medical University sector, for example, although two colleges there have been steadily expanding.



For my two cents, I think that to everyone, "Third World" means something diffrent. I use the term for the real hellholes, where I would assume that things probably aren't quite as great as here in the First World (such as Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and I call everything else "Second world" (and even that has two tiers, where Brazil is in the higher one, and where I would assume I would get good, possibley great medical treatment)

Yeah the US starting a war/civil-war, displaying 4 million people, killing hundreds of thousands and wounded many more; with it's own economy going down the toilet truly does show that the education system is crap and none of the people know anything or have anything to offer.

Yes, how dare I expand on the OP in any manner. Sorry. I will confine myself to only discussing how everyone makes assumptions about everyone else, and we can wrap the thread up in a few more posts by nodding and agreeing.

that's right. any expansion or deviation must be preceeded by a notice making such an announcement.

Improper thread management will result in going off topic and confusion as people will be discussing 20 different things... all at the same time. :p

OR he could be assuming, like I am, that a country that as recently as 2002 that was engaged in a massive civil war, that displaced millions, killed hundreds of thousands, and wounded countless more might not have the best education system in the world. I am sorry if my horrible assumption is wrong, in which case I am very happy for the Sieraa Lieonean people, as well as awed by their ability to come together and to so rapidly rebuild their country to a point that they have managed to outpace the universities in the U.S. I checked on wikipedia after I wrote that last sentence, and from what I can tell, its pretty good for a country just re-emerging from devestation. I suppose the diamonds helped, as well as some other things that I just learned were unique to Sierra Lieone. But it says nothing that would indicate a flat-out miraculous turnaround in the Medical University sector, for example, although two colleges there have been steadily expanding.

He can't be assuming like you are, because you are not assuming. Your post denotes a minimal awareness of the issues affecting Sierra Leone specifically, and you check your knowledge against the knowledge of others. Myrmy has not shown himself to be capable of such critical thinking.

For my two cents, I think that to everyone, "Third World" means something diffrent. I use the term for the real hellholes, where I would assume that things probably aren't quite as great as here in the First World (such as Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and I call everything else "Second world" (and even that has two tiers, where Brazil is in the higher one, and where I would assume I would get good, possibley great medical treatment)

You bring up a good point about what is a third world country. That's another topic, but one that should be explored, in my opinion.

But the First World countries are necessarily better.... because they have more money.... and we all know that more money means happier citizens, better healthcare, better-tasting food, more reliable technology, and smarter people! Seriously, once I was in a generic Third World country and I saw something indescribably uncivilised that would obviously never happen in my home nation!

Well, as always, there are trade-offs. The highest quality and most inexpensive dental care I've had was in a small town in a nation almost universally considered -- by Americans at least -- a third world hellhole. On the other hand, internet access in the same town is only available for about $8 per half hour, and it's not particularly fast either. In small villages the food is far better because it is freshly made on-site; on the other hand it's forty klicks over bumpy dirt roads to the nearest hospital. Houses may be cheaper, and people friendlier, but they might be the squash-centipede only-two-showers-in-a-row insulation-what-insulation this-month's-telephone-bill-is-what houses, and the my-dad-taught-me-all-I-need-to-know you-can-never-eat-too-much voodoo-magic-heals-wounds people.

Likewise, in a First World country, there's a much wider selection of foods but most of them taste stale and watery and nothing comes from the immediate vicinity, unless you're willing to pay a few dollars extra per item; the healthcare may (on rare occasions) be of higher quality or efficiency, but it costs $10,000 more; the average person may know more science and philosophy and politics, but might also be too busy trying to feed his family on a non-inflation-adjusted salary to spend a few hours in the café talking with you about 'em.

What you are saying is true to an extent, but it is sometimes a justified assumption.

Generally, the less money a country has, the worse the education system is. Likewise, the poorer the people are, the less access to good education they have and the less desire for education they hold.

Ho-ray, poor countries are better than us! Can we get on with our lives now?

I'm talking bout the belief among people in the 'first world' (or developed world or minority world or global north, whichever term you prefer) that everything in the 'third world' (or developing/majority/ global south) is 'less good'.


Please do not blame the "first world" for this. This attitude is deliberately created by the governments of the "third world". They tell us, "things here are LESS GOOD, so please SEND MONEY."

The Scandinavians fall for that line every day. Americans, not so much per capita, but quite a bit in mass.

Okay, everyone, the truth is out. The "Third World" isn't "less good", so cancel that check to UNICEF. Doctors Without Borders? Who needs them? CARE? OXFAM? Just looking to pick your pockets. And Heifer Project, get real, do you really think some family in Peru needs YOU to send them a Llama?

Or, maybe its time to promote Chile and some others OUT of "third world" status? Or maybe we need "fourth world" to distinguish the truly crappy places from places running a bit behind?

Meanwhile, Somewhere in the Third World:

"Who are you?"

"We're from Heifer Project. Here is your Llama."

"What? Why do I want a..."

"SNAWT!"

"You're struggling to support your family of five, yes?"

"If you mean by strugging I am paying for the exhorbitant tuition at..."

"SNAWT"

"Gracious me, that thing SPIT!"

"It's a Llama, they do that, sign here. The Llama provides valuable meat and wool, and..."

"Wool? This is a tropical country! Don't you have an animal with a light microfiber coat?"

"and is a hardy animal that can be raised in difficult conditions."

"But this is an Apartment! We're on the 22nd floor!"

"Great. Llamas thrive at high altitudes. Here is a brochure on how to care for your Llama."

"SNAWT!!"

Really, I kid, I kid. They are one of my favorite organizations, they do a lot of good in the world, and I encourage support for them.

http://www.heifer.org

Drop in, and send a water buffalo to a needy medical student in Sierra Leone. No dorm room should be without one.

It's not just a first world vs third world. It actually happens quite often even in between first world countries and even unconsciously. I recall once that this woman, who was a fruit vendor by the way, was telling me that she would check the strawberries for me, to make sure that there wasn't anything wrong with them (nice). However, she then comes up with the claim that "because those Belgian farmers always put the worst ones on the bottom"... ehh... woman? Have you considered that strawberries, being a fruit, will perhaps get a bit soggy if they're being mushed by the weight of hundreds of strawberries above them and that maybe it's got less to do with the Belgians and more to do with the strawberries and the way you're stacking them up?

Which gets to the heart of the issue. People will make an assumption, like Myrmi did with Sierra Leone, and not back it up. Sierra Leone could have an excellent education system, but because so many people think "Sierra Leone is third world, ergo, bad education" any degree from there does actually become worthless. It doesn't matter if you learned more than if you had studied in the US. It's basically the difference between a famous, but snobby, university versus a little-known, but extremely academic, university.

Did you know that New Zealand is a third world, emerging second world country?

Most people don't even understand the definition of third world/first world.

Did you know that New Zealand is a third world, emerging second world country?

Most people don't even understand the definition of third world/first world.

Well that's it then. No Llamas for New Zealand.

The point is that you haven't even bothered to look. You haven't checked to see if medical educations from Sierra Leone are in high demand. You are assuming this. Again, your attempts to justify your ignorance simply reveal it more.

Keep going. I am enjoying this.
Actually, I'm enjoying it too. Your reluctance to judge is amusing. Even to the point where you refuse to assume that an education in a third world, excuse me, "developing" nation is less desirable than in the United States.

One of the benefits of experience is the accuracy of assumptions based on that experience. And what do you know? I'm right about the undesirability of travel to Sierra Leone... There's absolutely no good reason to go there.

By the way, one incredibly good criteria I've adopted for selecting potential vacation spots is the requirement for vaccination. If a country requires a vaccination, it's not where I want to spend my vacation dollars.

I come across a certain attitude quite often; one that most often hasn't been developed consciously, or has even been examined by the people holding it. It's more of an assumption, a sense, something that 'just is' until actually brought out and eyeballed. I'm talking about the belief among people in the 'first world' (or developed world or minority world or global north, whichever term you prefer) that everything in the 'third world' (or developing/majority/ global south) is 'less good'.
Aye, that's because it usually isn't as good.
People often assume that, for example, the education system in all of the 'developing world' is not nearly as good as it is in the developed world. Chile is lumped in with Sierra Leone for example. Oh, you might know nothing about the actual education system in either of those countries, but it appears obvious that it can't be as good as say...Canada...because then they probably wouldn't be 'third world', right?
Chile has mandatory primary and secondary education, the government pays a stipend to those children who couldn't otherwise go to school privately. It's a not-too-bad system.

In Sierra Leone, most people don't get an education.

There we go.

And aye, they're not as good as Canada. So there we go.
Overall, there might be more literate, or highly educated people in the 'first world'...
Obviously. By fucking miles.
but one also needs to take into account the many highly skilled and educated people who come to the first world because of lack of opportunity in their own nations. The Philippines, for example, 'exports' many highly trained medical staff to first world nations.
A minority of well-trained staff leave. Woohoo or something. Our education system still beats the hell out of theirs.
Meanwhile, there are school systems in Canada that are an absolute embarrassment...whose children perform at levels far below some children in the third world.

The point is not to just beat on the first world...it is to recognise that we can't just sit, feeling all superior, while our various essential systems go to shit. Having a vague sense of 'we're on top' just doesn't cut it. It's complacent, and it's fucking annoying. So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?
Here, allow me to demonstrate -

The situation, in terms of education, is far better in Canada than it is in the third world. There might be the odd shitty district here and there, although your claims that they're doing worse than the third world sounds dubious, without the students being genuinely retarded, but overall, things are much better.

The reason we say "hurrah for the first world" is because we are genuinely doing better than everyone else, and it's good to be proud of that. The fact that we also help out with UN education programmes etc. is a sign that it's not just hubris, but that we can confer that onto the rest of the world, too.

Actually, I'm enjoying it too. Your reluctance to judge is amusing. Even to the point where you refuse to assume that an education in a third world, excuse me, "developing" nation is less desirable than in the United States.

Who said I was reluctant to judge? The difference between you and me is that I go out and get the facts, and then judge. You simply judge based on you unsupported assumptions. You are correct that I refuse to assume things to be true without evidence. It's called critical thinking.

One of the benefits of experience is the accuracy of assumptions based on that experience. And what do you know? I'm right about the undesirability of travel to Sierra Leone... There's absolutely no good reason to go there.

Funny, but I don't trust the opinion of someone who willfully admits to believing unsupported assumptions. But it is good that you have provided yet another example of willful ignorance. You ignorantly believe that there is nothing good in Sierra Leone, so you don't go there, so you end up being ignorant about it. How wonderfully circular.

I have found that the best benefit of experience is that it provides new information that challenges my assumptions.

The situation, in terms of education, is far better in Canada than it is in the third world. There might be the odd shitty district here and there, although your claims that they're doing worse than the third world sounds dubious, without the students being genuinely retarded, but overall, things are much better.

Prove it. Until then, you are making an assumption. The same assumption that Neesika describes in the OP. Way to prove her point.

The reason we say "hurrah for the first world" is because we are genuinely doing better than everyone else, and it's good to be proud of that. The fact that we also help out with UN education programmes etc. is a sign that it's not just hubris, but that we can confer that onto the rest of the world, too.

Awesome! Now we can show all those coloured folk how much better they would live if they lived exactly like we do! Oh, the burden of being a white man!

Prove it. Until then, you are making an assumption. The same assumption that Neesika describes in the OP. Way to prove her point.


Surely the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on her.

Funny, but I don't trust the opinion of someone who willfully admits to believing unsupported assumptions. But it is good that you have provided yet another example of willful ignorance. You ignorantly believe that there is nothing good in Sierra Leone, so you don't go there, so you end up being ignorant about it. How wonderfully circular.
If you could get off your high horse for a moment, you'd realise that he's probably quite right. Only 23% of people there are literate and in the 1990s, until we put a stop to it in 2002, there was a particularly horrible civil war on, which displaced about 2 million and killed tens of thousands. Not co-incidentally, the majority of the population is under 18, about two thirds of the population survives from subsistence farming alone, and the economy is almost completely based on non-renewable sources of income such as mining.

Utter clusterfuck of a country, to be quite honest.

He probably is right. But the difference is that he assumes it's a clusterfuck because it's a third world country, not for the specific reasons you gave above.

There's nothing wrong particularly with this assumption, since as I said, there is a very strong trend between crappy economies, crappy governments and crappy education. But perhaps it's not that black and white, but enough to generalise.

If you could get off your high horse for a moment, you'd realise that he's probably quite right. Only 23% of people there are literate and in the 1990s, until we put a stop to it in 2002, there was a particularly horrible civil war on, which displaced about 2 million and killed tens of thousands. Not co-incidentally, the majority of the population is under 18, about two thirds of the population survives from subsistence farming alone, and the economy is almost completely based on non-renewable sources of income such as mining.

Utter clusterfuck of a country, to be quite honest.

He probably is right. But the difference is that he assumes it's a clusterfuck because it's a third world country, not for the specific reasons you gave above. In other words, he is making an assumption. It doesn't matter if it just happens to be correct in one specific instance.

For example, if I were to say that all black people are criminals, I would be making a racist assumption. If a black person ended up being a criminal, that would not change the fact that I'm making a racist assumption, does it?

I find myself questioning your assumption that there is only "first world" and "third world". Personally, I've never thought of countries like Chile, or Ukraine, or Iran, as "third world". They're certainly not "first world", but they don't conjure up the specific images and conditions associated with the "third world" either. There's another category (or categories) in between, or perhaps not in between but somewhere else altogether.

Yes, there are stereotypical Third World conditions in the Third World, which can be found in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and southern Asia. There is abnormally high First World prosperity with all the consequences thereof in the First World, which can be found in parts of North America, parts of Europe, and parts of the Pacific Rim. Both of these are minorities. The actual norm of human living conditions is elsewhere.

Prove it. Until then, you are making an assumption. The same assumption that Neesika describes in the OP. Way to prove her point.
Am I bollocks making an assumption.

Apart from Cuba and Chile, there are no LEDCs with a literacy rate higher than 96%

There is not a single country in Europe with a literacy rate lower than that figure, other than Portugal and Malta. Even the crappest end of Eastern Europe isn't actually particularly bad, with 96.2% literacy in Moldova, one of the worst in Europe, and the worst in Eastern Europe. Canada and the US have a literacy rate of 99% apeice, Australia and New Zealand stand again at 99% literacy.

Now of the last 100 countries, all with a literacy rate under 92%, the majority are in Africa, with a few from South America and some from the Middle East. That's the facts for you.

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

There's the list if you want it.
Awesome! Now we can show all those coloured folk how much better they would live if they lived exactly like we do! Oh, the burden of being a white man!
Pardon?

It's not about being black or white, it's about how well-educated you are. Barbados, which is mostly made up of black people, is more literate than Moldova, where there are roughly 3 black people in the entire population.

No, I think it's because I don't agree with her. But she can answer for herself. No, GoG got it quite right.


Here's where the market speaks for me... If the degrees offered by higher education in Sierra Leone were valuable, then we would see many more people attending them. It would be more like the colleges and universities in the U.S. People would come from far, far away just to get that degree with the value.

I don't have to know how good the education is in Sierra Leone, all I need to know is that it isn't worth the price that's required to get it.

Don't conflate inherent value with market value. A Sierra Leonian university grad will undoubtably earn LESS than a USian university grad, and will likely have less opportunity to become employable (assuming said US grad didn't major in underwater basketweaving). That is a functin of domestic markets. The earning power or monetary value of the two degrees does not inform the level of education received. Unfortunately, many people, like yourself, do not understand the distinction.

Instead, what they do is say, 'well hey a doctor in the US can earn x amount of dollars, and a doctor in Sierra Leone can only earn y amount of dollars, therefore the education in the US is better'.

No. One does not necessarily follow the other.

Now lack of opportunity to utilise that education is an entirely different issue, which speaks to the utility of the degree, not the inherent educational merit of it.

He probably is right. But the difference is that he assumes it's a clusterfuck because it's a third world country, not for the specific reasons you gave above. In other words, he is making an assumption. It doesn't matter if it just happens to be correct in one specific instance.

For example, if I were to say that all black people are criminals, I would be making a racist assumption. If a black person ended up being a criminal, that would not change the fact that I'm making a racist assumption, does it?
No really, most of Africa is in a much, much worse state than Europe, North America and Oceania.

That's just true. It's not a racist claim, Africa really is just in a bad shape due to the amount of wars that it has had in the last 20 years, the crappy dictators that have ruled it generally from the late 1960s up until now, and the lack of investment there because of those things.

OR he could be assuming, like I am, that a country that as recently as 2002 that was engaged in a massive civil war, that displaced millions, killed hundreds of thousands, and wounded countless more might not have the best education system in the world. You'll note, Sierra Leone was simply an example, and Myrm continued to direct his comments towards the entire third world, quite unapologetically.


For my two cents, I think that to everyone, "Third World" means something diffrent. I use the term for the real hellholes, where I would assume that things probably aren't quite as great as here in the First World (such as Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and I call everything else "Second world" (and even that has two tiers, where Brazil is in the higher one, and where I would assume I would get good, possibley great medical treatment)
Considering that the second world has traditionally been used to refer to communist states within the sphere of Soviet influence, it's probably not a good term. You are still ranking things in a 'best, second best, third best' fashion.

Overall, that might work. But people tend to generalise a little too much. "We have the best food in the word because we're first world." Um...well I guess if you're into that sort of thing...'best' is a rather subjective word, and if you've never eaten outside your country, how on earth can you possibly make that statement?

The point is the ignorance behind many of these statements. The unshaken belief that everything in the 'first world' is automatically better than anything you'd find in the 'third world'. Maybe so...maybe no. Declaring it thus because you've been raised to believe it is...disturbing.

Instead, what they do is say, 'well hey a doctor in the US can earn x amount of dollars, and a doctor in Sierra Leone can only earn y amount of dollars, therefore the education in the US is better'.

No. One does not necessarily follow the other.
In this case, it does, because Sierra Leone only has one medical college, at Njala University, and we're talking "Community Health" here - first aid type stuff.

You're not really helping yourself in this debate, to be honest.

that's right. any expansion or deviation must be preceeded by a notice making such an announcement.

Improper thread management will result in going off topic and confusion as people will be discussing 20 different things... all at the same time. :p

Also, I don't think it's that much of a deviation. The premise was the sense of superiority frankly drilled into those of us raised in the 'first world' from infancy on. Many people in the developing world share our delusional and unfounded belief in our superiority...and are quite disappointed when they arrive to find that yes, some things are better, but some things are distinctly worse. And I ain't just talking about the weather baby.

I mean...if people here want to live with narrow horizons, chomping on twinkies and porking out on wonder bread and truly believing that we've reached the pinacle of development...so be it. But we should shut our obese mouths when it comes to declaring that we are the 'best' with no comparisons to truly draw on.

What you are saying is true to an extent, but it is sometimes a justified assumption.

Generally, the less money a country has, the worse the education system is. Likewise, the poorer the people are, the less access to good education they have and the less desire for education they hold.

Again, let me point out that the reason I'm bringing this up is because I think a lot of people honestly don't even think that their assumptions might be wrong. Again, this can lead to a dangerous complacency. If you think that by virtue of being 'first world' that your education system is the best in the world, you aren't going to look abroad for improvements. When you're already the best, what's there to improve?

The developing world doesn't have that foolish belief. India, for example, undertook a massive program to have citizens trained in the developed world to learn IT skills in order to become the world's customer service call centre. They were able to learn from others, and bring it home to benefit themselves. We don't think we need to do that, because we only see people coming to us. Why? Because everything else sucks and we don't need it? No. Because we BELIEVE everything else sucks and we don't need it.

That kind of attitude is going to see us pushed aside when those more innovative, and hungrier than us begin to flex their muscles.

Ho-ray, poor countries are better than us! Can we get on with our lives now?

Way to completely miss the point and remain as ignorant as when you started typing. Congratulations. *golf clap*

There's nothing wrong particularly with this assumption, since as I said, there is a very strong trend between crappy economies, crappy governments and crappy education. But perhaps it's not that black and white, but enough to generalise.

So I can say that black people are criminals then? There is a trend between skin colour, economic opportunity, and crime. It may not be black and white, but enough to generalise.

Am I bollocks making an assumption.

Apart from Cuba and Chile, there are no LEDCs with a literacy rate higher than 96%

There is not a single country in Europe with a literacy rate lower than that figure, other than Portugal and Malta. Even the crappest end of Eastern Europe isn't actually particularly bad, with 96.2% literacy in Moldova, one of the worst in Europe, and the worst in Eastern Europe. Canada and the US have a literacy rate of 99% apeice, Australia and New Zealand stand again at 99% literacy.

Now of the last 100 countries, all with a literacy rate under 92%, the majority are in Africa, with a few from South America and some from the Middle East. That's the facts for you.

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

There's the list if you want it.

You're right. You're no longer making an assumption, now that you have the facts to back it up. But coming to the same conclusion without the facts would be assuming.

Pardon?

It's not about being black or white, it's about how well-educated you are. Barbados, which is mostly made up of black people, is more literate than Moldova, where there are roughly 3 black people in the entire population.

No. I was pointing out the hubris in assuming that spreading our education system would be beneficial for the rest of the world.

No really, most of Africa is in a much, much worse state than Europe, North America and Oceania.

That's just true. It's not a racist claim, Africa really is just in a bad shape due to the amount of wars that it has had in the last 20 years, the crappy dictators that have ruled it generally from the late 1960s up until now, and the lack of investment there because of those things.

Does that mean we can then assume that all of Africa is ike that, as well as Latin America and Asia? Can we assume that someone in Africa is going to be poor and ignorant while a European will be intelligent and well off?

No, we can't. And holding these assumptions in our head will not help anyone. Not them. Not us.

So I can say that black people are criminals then? There is a trend between skin colour, economic opportunity, and crime. It may not be black and white, but enough to generalise.


The trend is between people who live in Ghettos and violent crime. A large portion of people who live in Ghettos are black, but obviously not causing in itself the crime. Also, the trend between black people and crime is far weaker than impoverished countries and rubbish education. The two assumptions are not comparable.

No really, most of Africa is in a much, much worse state than Europe, North America and Oceania.

That's just true. It's not a racist claim, Africa really is just in a bad shape due to the amount of wars that it has had in the last 20 years, the crappy dictators that have ruled it generally from the late 1960s up until now, and the lack of investment there because of those things.

You forgot the raping of Africa's natural resources by colonial powers. With that added, I can agree with your second paragraph.

Also, GoG has been directing his claims less at you than at Myrmidonesia.

The reason we say "hurrah for the first world" is because we are genuinely doing better than everyone else, and it's good to be proud of that. The fact that we also help out with UN education programmes etc. is a sign that it's not just hubris, but that we can confer that onto the rest of the world, too.

No, the reason we say "hurrah for the first world" is because we genuinely believe that the quality of life in a nation is directly proportional to its GDP per capita.

There are those third world countries who meet the definitions in all respects: famine, drought, civil war, corruption, undernourishment, slavery, and so on. Not many people particularly enjoy living in Somalia or Nicaragua or Afghanistan. Then there is a whole 'nother subset of third world countries that aren't marred by famine, drought, civil war etc., but merely happen to have mediocre education systems, primitive technology, et cetera. And from my experience, residents of this 'nother subset enjoy a better quality of life than your average American; especially in towns large enough to have all the necessary services but still small enough that everyone knows just about everyone else.

My country is better because we have digital watches.
My country is better because we have bread and butter pudding.
My country is worse because the weather can be really boring.
My country is worse because there is an overflow of bureaucracy.

By the way these arbitary claims are not for debate they are as certain as i know the sun is yellow and that illuminous sundials will never sell to rational people. And no you're not allowed to say the sun is not yellow, because because it it just is. erm yeah what was i talking about again?

You know, you seem to struggle with the concept of humour. Getting back on topic, I reckon a lot of people only ever hear about third world when the countries are in the news. Generally they are in the news when something bad has happened. That probably leads to people associating the countries with "badness" and that leads to the assumption that everything in these countries doesnt function as well these they do in the 1st world.

You're right. You're no longer making an assumption, now that you have the facts to back it up. But coming to the same conclusion without the facts would be assuming.
So I did check my assumptions, and they were right. Hurrah or something.
No. I was pointing out the hubris in assuming that spreading our education system would be beneficial for the rest of the world.
Err... well it probably would be, if everywhere else could afford it.
Does that mean we can then assume that all of Africa is ike that, as well as Latin America and Asia? Can we assume that someone in Africa is going to be poor and ignorant while a European will be intelligent and well off?

No, we can't. And holding these assumptions in our head will not help anyone. Not them. Not us.
You're right, we can't. On the other hand, can we assume that African countries are, in general, going to be poorly run, and that European countries will probably be run fine?

Yes, yes we can, because 40 years of dictatorships in Africa, and the fact that most of the people running it are very much like those people, suggests that it's going to be poorly run for a while yet.

No, the reason we say "hurrah for the first world" is because we genuinely believe that the quality of life in a nation is directly proportional to its GDP per capita.
I don't.

I personally feel that it's directly proportional to how easily I can find work, how well-educated I can become, if I can drink the tap water without boiling it or not, if I can live in peace, etc. etc.

The first world is really pretty excellent in terms of its education and healthcare, especially in comparison to most of the third world - fine, we have the odd exception like Cuba, but apart from that, it's basically superior to most of the southern hemisphere in basically every way.
There are those third world countries who meet the definitions in all respects: famine, drought, civil war, corruption, undernourishment, slavery, and so on. Not many people particularly enjoy living in Somalia or Nicaragua or Afghanistan. Then there is a whole 'nother subset of third world countries that aren't marred by famine, drought, civil war etc., but merely happen to have mediocre education systems, primitive technology, et cetera. And from my experience, residents of this 'nother subset enjoy a better quality of life than your average American; especially in towns large enough to have all the necessary services but still small enough that everyone knows just about everyone else.
Oh really.

Examples?

You forgot the raping of Africa's natural resources by colonial powers. With that added, I can agree with your second paragraph.
Err, no.

The methods for extracting diamonds and so on efficiently have only really come about in the last 25-odd years, with proper machinery being developed.

Before that, the possibility of actually raping Africa's natural resources was really cut down by the logistics of it - the only thing we really took from Africa was gold, which it still has vast, vast reserves of. We couldn't really get the diamonds, and we sure as hell didn't need the trees at the turn of the century.

So there we go.
Also, GoG has been directing his claims less at you than at Myrmidonesia.
Quite, but it's still perfectly valid to argue a point of view to someone arguing against you, if not directly to you, no?

And aye, they're not as good as Canada. So there we go. Whoa whoa whoa! How do you go from 'this is what they do in Chile' and 'this is what they do in Sierra Leone' to 'Canadian education is better'?

Have you evaluated the curriculum? Literacy rates? Specialisations? Have you compared, for example, what engineers in Chile learn compared to what engineers in Canada learn?

No...you've done some very basic probing, and then skipped to 'we win, we win!'


The situation, in terms of education, is far better in Canada than it is in the third world. There might be the odd shitty district here and there, although your claims that they're doing worse than the third world sounds dubious, without the students being genuinely retarded, but overall, things are much better.
This does not mean that what a Canadian student learns is more advanced than what a student in Morocco learns. You speak only to opportunities, which once again, fails to address the issue that economics can not be the only criteria with which we judge things to be 'good, better, best'.

I can buy a shitty meal at McDonald's for about $7. For $4 in Cuba, I can feast on lobster. Your approach would have me believe that McDonald's is OBVIOUSLY better because it costs more money.

Or, perhaps you speak to earning power. I can eat at McDonald's three times a day for my entire life (short as it'll likely be if I did) for a mere fraction of my salary. A citizen of Cuba could not. The poor Cuban can only afford fresh fish, rice, beans and freshly squeezed fruit juice every day of his life for a fraction of his salary. Therefore, we win! Woooohooooo! Oh wait...um....

The reason we say "hurrah for the first world" is because we are genuinely doing better than everyone else, and it's good to be proud of that. The fact that we also help out with UN education programmes etc. is a sign that it's not just hubris, but that we can confer that onto the rest of the world, too.

Oh great, you've just proven, incontrovertibly (with no evidence btw) that we're better, and better means we should continue to export our betterness to the rest of the world to combat their crappiness.

Except you blanket generalise, and this is stupid.

Yay! Brain surgeons in Canada are super awesome! Sierra Leone has one, poorly trained one (hypothetical). All we have to do now is train more Sierra Leonians to be brain surgeons, like their Canadian counterpart. That will fix everything!

Oh wait...no it won't.

Oh look! People are poorer in Chile than in Canada! It must be their education system. If only they had an education system as good as what we have in Canada! Let's export it...and they'll all be as rich as us!

Oh wait...no they won't.

There are many more factors involved in our prosperity than 'we are the best at everything', but most people don't stop and think about that when they are assuming that dental care in Canada is better than it is in Argentina. They equate 'first world' with 'best in everything'. And you have done nothing but nod your head and go 'well obviously'.

The trend is between people who live in Ghettos and violent crime. A large portion of people who live in Ghettos are black, but obviously not causing in itself the crime. Also, the trend between black people and crime is far weaker than impoverished countries and rubbish education. The two assumptions are not comparable.

Okay. I will simply assume that all poor people are violent criminals. Thanks for showing me which assumptions and generalisations are good and which are not. This is far easier than researching the facts and context for individual situations. Thanks!

So I did check my assumptions, and they were right. Hurrah or something.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Err... well it probably would be, if everywhere else could afford it.

Do you have any evidence that would suggest that? Doesn't it make sense that imposing our cultural beliefs about education may cause disruption of local cultural practices, specifically those that involve passing on the cultural heritage of the population? After all, the Canadian and Austarlian residential school systems tried to do just that with their aboriginal populations, and that was a huge clusterfuck for the cultures involved. It was the assumption that our education is better that caused the problems in those examples.

You're right, we can't. On the other hand, can we assume that African countries are, in general, going to be poorly run, and that European countries will probably be run fine?

Yes, yes we can, because 40 years of dictatorships in Africa, and the fact that most of the people running it are very much like those people, suggests that it's going to be poorly run for a while yet.

I have a better idea. Why don't we see which countries are being run well, and which ones aren't, without making any assumptions?

Surely the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on her.

Um...my point was that people make judgments based on a lack of information, which Yootopia did.

I think my point is made.

*bows*

Okay. I will simply assume that all poor people are violent criminals. Thanks for showing me which assumptions and generalisations are good and which are not. This is far easier than researching the facts and context for individual situations. Thanks!


Sorry but your imaginary inventions about anyone stating that all people are anything is not actually an argument. Nobody has ever, in this entire thread, stated that all people are anything. Also, I can show you how you can't logically make this assumption because the trend is still too weak.

Logic is an important thing here, in case you didn't know, assumptions don't have to be supported by current events and statistics, but can also be supported by logic (or in this case basic common sense).

Logic such as, if a country is poor with a large population, it wont be able to fund it's education system well enough, and most people will be too poor to afford good education. Or maybe that a poor country is in itself evidence of a poor education (lack of skilled workers).

I find myself questioning your assumption that there is only "first world" and "third world". Personally, I've never thought of countries like Chile, or Ukraine, or Iran, as "third world". They're certainly not "first world", but they don't conjure up the specific images and conditions associated with the "third world" either. There's another category (or categories) in between, or perhaps not in between but somewhere else altogether.

Yes, there are stereotypical Third World conditions in the Third World, which can be found in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and southern Asia. There is abnormally high First World prosperity with all the consequences thereof in the First World, which can be found in parts of North America, parts of Europe, and parts of the Pacific Rim. Both of these are minorities. The actual norm of human living conditions is elsewhere.
I'm working with definitions used by others, not ones I buy into myself. Most people if they knew anything about certain countries, would agree that they probably aren't like 'insert hellhole country here'. But they most likely would STILL refer to that nation as third world, lacking a better defining term.

However, I also believe it is true that many people simply hear the name of a nation, locate it mentally in the world, and say, 'well that's in Africa, clearly it's third world'. That's a problem with education. Which is shocking, because First World education is the best.

In this case, it does, because Sierra Leone only has one medical college, at Njala University, and we're talking "Community Health" here - first aid type stuff.

You're not really helping yourself in this debate, to be honest.

Way to completely fail to disprove my proposition that the inherent quality of education is not determined solely by the earning power of the graduates.

Go find me the physics curriculum for a first year university student in Buenos Aires (or pick any other city in the 'third world'), and compare it to the curriculum for a first year university student in Edmonton. THEN you can tell me, with certainty, whose specific education is 'better'.

Sorry but your imaginary inventions about anyone stating that all people are anything is not actually an argument. Nobody has ever, in this entire thread, stated that all people are anything. Also, I can show you how you can't logically make this assumption because the trend is still too weak.

Then do it. Until then, I'm going to continue to believe that both assumptions are equally stupid.

Logic is an important thing here, in case you didn't know, assumptions don't have to be supported by current events and statistics, but can also be supported by logic (or in this case basic common sense).

Basic common sense tells us that the world is flat. Critical thinking and clear observation tells us otherwise. We can logically assume, using Occam's razor, that light is either a wave or a particle, rather than both. Critical thinking and clear observation tells us otherwise. You bring up a good point, though. Many people who have these and other similar assumptions about developing nations tend to rationalise such behaviour with appeals to 'common sense' or 'logic'. Personally, I find it logical to approach each situation with as few assumptions as possible.

Logic such as, if a country is poor with a large population, it wont be able to fund it's education system well enough, and most people will be too poor to afford good education. Or maybe that a poor country is in itself evidence of a poor education (lack of skilled workers).

Yet such an assumption is not always true. Why believe it?

Then do it. Until then, I'm going to continue to believe that both assumptions are equally stupid.


Are you saying I need to prove to you that not all poor people commit crimes. You can't logically deduce that for yourself?


Basic common sense tells us that the world is flat. Critical thinking and clear observation tells us otherwise.We can logically assume, using Occam's razor, that light is either a wave or a particle, rather than both. Critical thinking and clear observation tells us otherwise.

The first statement doesn't involve logic, or not good logic. The second statement is a little unfair, since quantum physics is amongst one of the only things that actually don't follow the rules of logic and physics.


You bring up a good point, though. Many people who have these and other similar assumptions about developing nations tend to rationalise such behaviour with appeals to 'common sense' or 'logic'. Personally, I find it logical to approach each situation with as few assumptions as possible.


Of course, if you're doing research or something important. But that doesn't make it wrong to assume something through logic, it just makes it possibly less substantial.


Yet such an assumption is not always true. Why believe it?

But it's true 99% of the time, so it's enough to generalise.

But it's true 99% of the time, so it's enough to generalise.

82% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Way to completely fail to disprove my proposition that the inherent quality of education is not determined solely by the earning power of the graduates.

Go find me the physics curriculum for a first year university student in Buenos Aires (or pick any other city in the 'third world'), and compare it to the curriculum for a first year university student in Edmonton. THEN you can tell me, with certainty, whose specific education is 'better'.
The burden of proof is really on you, to be honest.

The burden of proof is really on you, to be honest.

I'm sorry you have so much difficulty with this. I am proposing that you are making assumptions about the actual quality of education in a country, without having any information to actually base that assumption on. Since I have no idea what you know and what you do not, I can not prove that you have no information to base your assumptions on. The burden therefore shifts to you, as the only one who CAN prove it, that you in fact DO have relevant information which would support your assumption.

It's not really THAT difficult to understand, is it?

Are you saying I need to prove to you that not all poor people commit crimes. You can't logically deduce that for yourself?

And you can't logically deduce that all developing nations won't fit in to your assumptions?

The first statement doesn't involve logic, or not good logic. The second statement is a little unfair, since quantum physics is amongst one of the only things that actually don't follow the rules of logic and physics.

Wait, are you saying that my assumptions are wrong in this regard? What a surprise! Imagine that reality does not fit into my assumptions!

Of course, if you're doing research or something important. But that doesn't make it wrong to assume something through logic, it just makes it possibly less substantial.

It makes it possibly wrong. If you want to go into a situation where you are making decisions on information that may be wrong, that is your decision. I would prefer to analyse my assumptions, or better yet, get rid of them altogether.

But it's true 99% of the time, so it's enough to generalise.

Which assumption is 99% true? How do you know? Let me guess: you're assuming it.:rolleyes:

And you can't logically deduce that all developing nations won't fit in to your assumptions?


I can deduce that there is a possibility of exceptions (which I have not yet seen).


Wait, are you saying that my assumptions are wrong in this regard? What a surprise! Imagine that reality does not fit into my assumptions!


Your first assumption is not logical (thus cannot be compared), your second is not a fair example to use. Thats what I'm saying.


It makes it possibly wrong. If you want to go into a situation where you are making decisions on information that may be wrong, that is your decision. I would prefer to analyse my assumptions, or better yet, get rid of them altogether.


But the possibility of it being wrong is decreases significantly the more logical the assumption. For instance, if i'm falling off a cliff and I assume that when I hit the ground it's going to do some damage, the chances of this assumption are next to nothing.


Which assumption is 99% true? How do you know? Let me guess: you're assuming it.:rolleyes:

When you don't have enough money to fund good education, and your country is poor which is evidence of bad education in the first place, then it will logically be the case that the education of that country is bad. The only reason I didn't make it 100% of the time is because the world isn't completely logical, so there is a very small possibility of an exception. But I would like to see an impoverished nation with a good education system.

I'm sorry you have so much difficulty with this. I am proposing that you are making assumptions about the actual quality of education in a country, without having any information to actually base that assumption on. Since I have no idea what you know and what you do not, I can not prove that you have no information to base your assumptions on. The burden therefore shifts to you, as the only one who CAN prove it, that you in fact DO have relevant information which would support your assumption.

It's not really THAT difficult to understand, is it?

Knowing that a country is in poverty is in itself enough information.

Knowing that a country is in poverty is in itself enough information.

Poverty and education do not necessarily go hand in hand. For example, scientists on the moon or mars would, inevitably, be quite poor. All their stuff would come from elsewhere and they'd be very reliant on outside resources. They might be able to do subsistence farming, but they'd never be able to have the sort of industrial production that the UK has, for example.

However, they'd be extremely well-educated.

Similar ideas apply in places where drought has taken hold. You might be very well-educated and even have access to better education, but when there isn't any water left, there isn't all that much to do about starvation other than move away.

Whoa whoa whoa! How do you go from 'this is what they do in Chile' and 'this is what they do in Sierra Leone' to 'Canadian education is better'?

Have you evaluated the curriculum? Literacy rates? Specialisations? Have you compared, for example, what engineers in Chile learn compared to what engineers in Canada learn?

No...you've done some very basic probing, and then skipped to 'we win, we win!'
OK, fine.

Universidad de Santiago de Chile -

Engineering Department has 9 different areas, with exactly 20 precise specifications all in all.

http://www.usach.cl/en/index2.php?id=8053&nom=Teaching&pag=9382

The University of British Columbia has 11 general areas of study in the Engineering section, with a whole ton of more precise areas.

http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/



As to the literacy rates, they speak for themselves, let's be honest.
This does not mean that what a Canadian student learns is more advanced than what a student in Morocco learns. You speak only to opportunities, which once again, fails to address the issue that economics can not be the only criteria with which we judge things to be 'good, better, best'.
Oh please.

That there is limited opportunity for success in Morroco is mainly due to its fairly low level of outside investment and its war with the seperatist movement of the Western Sahara, which has been going on for far too long.

Canada has little hand in either of those things, so don't try to blame it for that one.
I can buy a shitty meal at McDonald's for about $7. For $4 in Cuba, I can feast on lobster. Your approach would have me believe that McDonald's is OBVIOUSLY better because it costs more money.
No, no I don't think that at all, to be honest.
Or, perhaps you speak to earning power. I can eat at McDonald's three times a day for my entire life (short as it'll likely be if I did) for a mere fraction of my salary. A citizen of Cuba could not. The poor Cuban can only afford fresh fish, rice, beans and freshly squeezed fruit juice every day of his life for a fraction of his salary. Therefore, we win! Woooohooooo! Oh wait...um....
Who's the one making assumptions here?

You're assuming that I personally feel that the amount of wealth, or the spending power, or whatever else, in a country is the best indicator of its success.

I honestly don't feel that way. I personally feel that the level of unemployment, the amount and distribution of drinking water, the success of its education system in terms of raising the standard of living in that country and the provision of healthcare in the country are, realistically, the most important things to how good a country is.
Oh great, you've just proven, incontrovertibly (with no evidence btw) that we're better, and better means we should continue to export our betterness to the rest of the world to combat their crappiness.
No, what's happened is that you've just proven, with ample evidence, that instead of actually taking in my arguments, you'd prefer to smear your opposition instead of actually addressing some of the more important points brought up by their posts.
Except you blanket generalise, and this is stupid.

Yay! Brain surgeons in Canada are super awesome! Sierra Leone has one, poorly trained one (hypothetical). All we have to do now is train more Sierra Leonians to be brain surgeons, like their Canadian counterpart. That will fix everything!

Oh wait...no it won't.
It'll sort a lot more peoples' neurological needs, that's for sure, and certainly more than are currently being sorted out.
Oh look! People are poorer in Chile than in Canada! It must be their education system. If only they had an education system as good as what we have in Canada! Let's export it...and they'll all be as rich as us!

Oh wait...no they won't.
No, you're quite right, it won't fix everything straight away. On the other hand, giving people an education is certainly a good place to start the road to economic and social recovery, no?
There are many more factors involved in our prosperity than 'we are the best at everything', but most people don't stop and think about that when they are assuming that dental care in Canada is better than it is in Argentina. They equate 'first world' with 'best in everything'. And you have done nothing but nod your head and go 'well obviously'.
Anything to disprove that Canadian dental care is better than that in Argentina?

Of course I'll assume it's better, the Canadian health service is far better funded, so I'd love to see some evidence on the contrary from yourself.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
No, it wasn't. Please can you prove something now?
Do you have any evidence that would suggest that? Doesn't it make sense that imposing our cultural beliefs about education may cause disruption of local cultural practices, specifically those that involve passing on the cultural heritage of the population? After all, the Canadian and Austarlian residential school systems tried to do just that with their aboriginal populations, and that was a huge clusterfuck for the cultures involved. It was the assumption that our education is better that caused the problems in those examples.
Since Australia has a literacy rate of 99%, I'm going to take a massive gamble here and say that for literally all but 1% of the population, the education system is pretty good indeed.
I have a better idea. Why don't we see which countries are being run well, and which ones aren't, without making any assumptions?
Sounds good. Get me a list from the highest HDI to the lowest, please. Then we'll have a see.
Um...my point was that people make judgments based on a lack of information, which Yootopia did.

I think my point is made.

*bows*
Pardon?

I didn't make a judgement based on a lack of information at all, and indeed presented it in a pretty obvious manner.

The point is the ignorance behind many of these statements. The unshaken belief that everything in the 'first world' is automatically better than anything you'd find in the 'third world'. Maybe so...maybe no. Declaring it thus because you've been raised to believe it is...disturbing.
It's still a hell of a good first assumption to make. To make that assumption and then hold to it steadfastly is silly, but we haven't actually found any exceptions to disprove that initial assumption...

Isn't the fact alone that a country isn't third world, or developing, enough to establish it as "better"? -- Kind of like what you call prima facie -- the fact alone is enough unless you can disprove it.

Now, what third world country has something better than one of our favored first world nations?

I can deduce that there is a possibility of exceptions (which I have not yet seen).

Right. If we can deduce the possibilty of an exception, we can deduce the possibility of our assumption being wrong. Why continue to hold the assumption when it could be wrong?

Your first assumption is not logical (thus cannot be compared), your second is not a fair example to use. Thats what I'm saying.

You were discussing common sense. The flatness of the world is a good example of how assumptions from common sense can be wrong.

The same could be said about assumptions based on logic. We could logically assume that poverty is a root cause of terrorism. That does not make it so.

But the possibility of it being wrong is decreases significantly the more logical the assumption. For instance, if i'm falling off a cliff and I assume that when I hit the ground it's going to do some damage, the chances of this assumption are next to nothing.

I would see that more as a hypothesis that is about to be confirmed. And you're right in the middle of the experiment.

When you don't have enough money to fund good education, and your country is poor which is evidence of bad education in the first place, then it will logically be the case that the education of that country is bad. The only reason I didn't make it 100% of the time is because the world isn't completely logical, so there is a very small possibility of an exception. But I would like to see an impoverished nation with a good education system.

Is a poor country evidence of a bad educational system? To me that sounds like yet another assumption.

Poverty and education do not necessarily go hand in hand. For example, scientists on the moon or mars would, inevitably, be quite poor. All their stuff would come from elsewhere and they'd be very reliant on outside resources. They might be able to do subsistence farming, but they'd never be able to have the sort of industrial production that the UK has, for example.


But they were still born and raised in rich countries.


However, they'd be extremely well-educated.

Similar ideas apply in places where drought has taken hold. You might be very well-educated and even have access to better education, but when there isn't any water left, there isn't all that much to do about starvation other than move away.

True, but first world countries tend to recover from droughts very quickly, I don't think a normal drought could cause a first world country to decline into a third world one.

Right. If we can deduce the possibility of an exception, we can deduce the possibility of our assumption being wrong. Why continue to hold the assumption when it could be wrong?


Well first of all, I'm not actually outright assuming that education will always be bad in third world countries. I'm saying that this will be the case in general.


You were discussing common sense. The flatness of the world is a good example of how assumptions from common sense can be wrong.


I question the common sense involved with that, but that just leads on to what I said earlier, about some assumptions having more logical basis than others.


The same could be said about assumptions based on logic. We could logically assume that poverty is a root cause of terrorism. That does not make it so.


I don't think you can logically assume that terrorism is completely based on poverty. Obviously religion, anger, propaganda etc.. are other factors.


I would see that more as a hypothesis that is about to be confirmed. And you're right in the middle of the experiment.


But it still doesn't involve actual observing of any country.


Is a poor country evidence of a bad educational system? To me that sounds like yet another assumption.

Well yeah, as I have explained already. A poor country indicates a lack of skilled workers, a lack of skilled workers indicate a lack of education, or good education. Again, there is a very small possibility of exception (such as the great depression), but it's clear that the third world countries that we are talking about don't fall under these exceptions.

True, but first world countries tend to recover from droughts very quickly, I don't think a normal drought could cause a first world country to decline into a third world one.

Yes they do, but then consider: What would happen if you get five years of consecutive drought? I doubt the EU could last without an agricultural basis for five years, even with the stores that they have.

That has happened to some African nations, which has had unfortunate consequences.

Yes they do, but then consider: What would happen if you get five years of consecutive drought? I doubt the EU could last without an agricultural basis for five years, even with the stores that they have.

That has happened to some African nations, which has had unfortunate consequences.
The EU could do fine, because of the fact that we'd just get some canals going to the worst-hit regions.

If Australia survived for a fair few years with a drought, I reckon we'd be fine here in the EU, to be honest.

Really? And do you think that all those Aboriginal kids forcibly separated from their families and forced to learn European culture enjoyed it?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen18.html
Probably not, on the other hand, at least they can read.
But then you would have information. Isn't it easier to just make assumptions?
...

Just do it.

The EU could do fine, because of the fact that we'd just get some canals going to the worst-hit regions.

If Australia survived for a fair few years with a drought, I reckon we'd be fine here in the EU, to be honest.

Well, the EU is a quite large area. However, my point was more along the lines of 'imagine your agricultural basis eliminated for five years'. I think for the EU, an ice age might be more apt, with glaciers and early frosts destroying crops and viable farmland.

Some poor places, that typically survive the occasional drought, may have access to quite good education, but due to severe drought and lack of natural resources, they've come to be poor and, as a side-effect of starvation, their education aren't really of much use (a study was done on the effects of malnutrition with regards to education. Needless to say, malnutrition hampers the brains ability to function).

No, it wasn't. Please can you prove something now?



Since Australia has a literacy rate of 99%, I'm going to take a massive gamble here and say that for literally all but 1% of the population, the education system is pretty good indeed.

Really? And do you think that all those Aboriginal kids forcibly separated from their families and forced to learn European culture enjoyed it?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen18.html

Sounds good. Get me a list from the highest HDI to the lowest, please. Then we'll have a see.

But then you would have information. Isn't it easier to just make assumptions?

It's still a hell of a good first assumption to make. To make that assumption and then hold to it steadfastly is silly, but we haven't actually found any exceptions to disprove that initial assumption...

Yet here you are, applauding the fact that you are holding steadfast to unproven assumptions.

Isn't the fact alone that a country isn't third world, or developing, enough to establish it as "better"? -- Kind of like what you call prima facie -- the fact alone is enough unless you can disprove it.

No. That would be stupid. It would be stupid because it would be assumed to be better without thinking about it. Which is kinda the whole point of the thread. Try to keep up.

Now, what third world country has something better than one of our favored first world nations?

Read the thread. I can't be bothered to repeat it for you.

Well first of all, I'm not actually outright assuming that education will always be bad in third world countries. I'm saying that this will be the case in general.

Good. I don't mind assumptions when you know they are assumptions and they can be put aside as soon as new information comes in.

I question the common sense involved with that, but that just leads on to what I said earlier, about some assumptions having more logical basis than others.

Well, you can't know that until you question them.

I don't think you can logically assume that terrorism is completely based on poverty. Obviously religion, anger, propaganda etc.. are other factors.

The assumption that poverty is a root cause of terrorism is also wrong.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20060219/ai_n16158178

But it still doesn't involve actual observing of any country.

I was talking about your 'falling off a cliff' example.

Well yeah, as I have explained already. A poor country indicates a lack of skilled workers, a lack of skilled workers indicate a lack of education, or good education. Again, there is a very small possibility of exception (such as the great depression), but it's clear that the third world countries that we are talking about don't fall under these exceptions.

A lack of skilled workers may be due to a brain drain as the most educated use their education to move to a more developed nation. You see, I can come up with hypotheses too. I just don't assume they're true until I have some sort of evidence.

Well, the EU is a quite large area. However, my point was more along the lines of 'imagine your agricultural basis eliminated for five years'. I think for the EU, an ice age might be more apt, with glaciers and early frosts destroying crops and viable farmland.

Some poor places, that typically survive the occasional drought, may have access to quite good education, but due to severe drought and lack of natural resources, they've come to be poor and, as a side-effect of starvation, their education aren't really of much use (a study was done on the effects of malnutrition with regards to education. Needless to say, malnutrition hampers the brains ability to function).
Nah, it'd be fine. We have massive reserves of food, loads of water, have loads of money to buy from abroad, and worst comes to worst, we can grow stuff with hydroponics

Well, you can't know that until you question them.


Of course.


The assumption that poverty is a root cause of terrorism is also wrong.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20060219/ai_n16158178


Well I never assumed that, and don't think it has logical basis as strong as the link between poverty and education.


I was talking about your 'falling off a cliff' example.


Right well I'm not making a hypothesis really, you just tend to know it's going to hurt, but it's still ultimately a conclusion.


A lack of skilled workers may be due to a brain drain as the most educated use their education to move to a more developed nation. You see, I can come up with hypotheses too. I just don't assume they're true until I have some sort of evidence.

This is true, but even so the government wont have enough to fund good education for the majority of the population anyway if the country is incredibly poor. Also the demand for skilled workers will be much higher in the poorer nation, possibly increasing the value of working in that country rather than emigrating. Other factors can also go into this.

Of course.



Well I never assumed that, and don't think it has logical basis as strong as the link between poverty and education.



Right well I'm not making a hypothesis really, you just tend to know it's going to hurt, but it's still ultimately a conclusion.



This is true, but even so the government wont have enough to fund good education for the majority of the population anyway if the country is incredibly poor. Also the demand for skilled workers will be much higher in the poorer nation, possibly increasing the value of working in that country rather than emigrating. Other factors can also go into this.

I need to go eat. I think I'm gonna go now. Nice debating with you. Made me really think about a few things.

I need to go eat. I think I'm gonna go now. Nice debating with you. Made me really think about a few things.

Thanks. Good debating with you too!

Well, you can't know that until you question them
I disagree. You don't have to question the assumption to have assessed the basis for that assumption. Surely questioning them is only required in order to assess the truth of the assumption?

I don't see what all the hate for assumptions is for. In principle there is nothing wrong with making assumptions, indeed whenever you do anything you are making a huge number of assumptions for even trivial tasks. If you make no assumptions then you can't even be sure you exist. The issue then is identifying which assumptions are 'better' than others, which are 'good enough', rather than assumption = bad as some posts seem to suggest. And 'good enough' is always arbitrary.

Surely the entire point of debate is to identify the opponents erroneous assumptions and attempt to show them that they are false.

OK, fine.

Universidad de Santiago de Chile -

Engineering Department has 9 different areas, with exactly 20 precise specifications all in all.

http://www.usach.cl/en/index2.php?id=8053&nom=Teaching&pag=9382

The University of British Columbia has 11 general areas of study in the Engineering section, with a whole ton of more precise areas.

http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/ Wow. What IS that? It's the sound of you failing to argue yourself out of a wet paper bag.

For all you know, an engineering degree in Chile prepares you only for the construction of a lego castle. You point to areas and specialisations and pretend that you've determined something? If Chile invented some imaginary specialisations and had MORE than the university in BC, would you suddenly change your mind? You'd be foolish to do so.

What I want to know is this. I'll make it EXTRA simple for you. If you took a civil engineering student, specialising in the hydraulics, from both BC and Santiago...what would their comparative levels of education be?

You don't know. I'm not sure why you are unable to admit that fact. You simply do. not. know. Someone with more intellectual honesty would admit to that fact.

You assume. You 'guess'. And then you go on to make statements based on your assumptions and guesses, as though those statements stand on firm ground. It might be fun to watch you stumbling around like this, but it's not advancing your argument whatsoever.

Try harder.

I love the way people come into this thread to make a point, only to prove the OP correct, that people do make illogical assumptions based on limited information and apply it to everything they deem in the same category. Though this applies to far more than just third world nations.

Wow. What IS that? It's the sound of you failing to argue yourself out of a wet paper bag.

For all you know, an engineering degree in Chile prepares you only for the construction of a lego castle. You point to areas and specialisations and pretend that you've determined something?

What I want to know is this. I'll make it EXTRA simple for you. If you took a civil engineering student, specialising in the hydraulics, from both BC and Santiago...what would their comparative levels of education be?

You don't know. I'm not sure why you are unable to admit that fact. You simply do. not. know. Someone with more intellectual honesty would admit to that fact.

You assume. You 'guess'. And then you go on to make statements based on your assumptions and guesses, as though those statements stand on firm ground. It might be fun to watch you stumbling around like this, but it's not advancing your argument whatsoever.

Try harder.

Why bother? You set the terms of this debate, and it's essentially unfair, because of course you can prove that any other poster makes assumptions.

That's kind of inevitable when you use the expression "third world" in the OP. You basically challenged people to generalize, then attack them when they do!

Myridomisia you dismissed as giving incomplete anecdotal evidence about health care (and yes, Myri did of course generalize from that, but it was copious personal experience).

Yootopia chose to concentrate on education (which you also mentioned in the OP, so that's quite fair.) You challenged them to give examples, and they did ... now you're saying those are inadequate.

I'd be a lot more interested if you would give examples yourself. So far, I've noticed only a comment or two about the fresh and distinctive diet in SOME third world countries (though can you doubt that Cubans might have a narrower range of available foods and might get a bit bored with lobster and mangoes?)

But more relevantly, since the thread has returned again and again to education ... perhaps you could put up some examples yourself, of what you recognize as a third-world country, and how it provides a better education (more satisfying and useful to the students) than some specific "first-world" country.

That should be pretty easy really. It's pretty well accepted that educating the population is an essential step in economic growth ... you should be able to find an example of a country which is educating their population but hasn't yet reaped the productivity benefits?

I love the way people come into this thread to make a point, only to prove the OP correct, that people do make illogical assumptions based on limited information and apply it to everything they deem in the same category. Though this applies to far more than just third world nations.

You love it? I'd much rather Neesika used her considerable knowledge to make some point. That people make assumptions is trivially true.

What I want to know is this. I'll make it EXTRA simple for you. If you took a civil engineering student, specialising in the hydraulics, from both BC and Santiago...what would their comparative levels of education be?


The OP was about the education system, not about one particular university. The majority of Chilians wont be able to afford to go to a university in the first place, therefore they don't have nearly as much funding and thus can't afford better professors. Nor does the government (if the country really is third world) have enough revenue to subsidise the universities, so there won't be enough good professors, since their pay will be lower, meaning there is no incentive to move over to Chili and teach whatever there in the first place. All this can be deduced from the fact that it's a third world country.

<snip>

The point is not to just beat on the first world...it is to recognise that we can't just sit, feeling all superior, while our various essential systems go to shit. Having a vague sense of 'we're on top' just doesn't cut it. It's complacent, and it's fucking annoying. So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?

To be honest, I find this assumption as prevalent in supposedly liberal and progressive circles. The idea that we are supposed to go down to those other countries and help out and bring them up to our standard of living is kinda nice if you don't think about it too much.

But once you start critically examining that paradigm, you realise it's just more paternalist bullshit. More of that 'white man's burden' crap.

<snip>
I agree with both of these statements. As a matter of personal preference, sure, I like my own culture and my own way of doing things best, for me. But that does not mean that my own way of doing things is somehow inherently superior to someone else's way of doing things. I would have to make a direct comparison to see if one is indeed better than the other. I do make such comparisons every chance I get because I enjoy studying cultures, and I often find that the affluence of a nation is NOT the deciding factor in quality of life/services, unless the wealth difference is extreme -- I mean the difference between the affluence of, say, the UK which is a stable nation with a strong economy versus rural Africa which is wracked by the effects of climate disasters, civil wars, and lack of infrastructure.

But to assume that things are better in a country just because it is ranked as "first world" is simply stupid. I refer anyone who thinks otherwise to many years of reports on healthcare, infant mortality and education in the US.

The "first world" is not an all-expenses-paid, all-services-included club. Just calling yourself "first world" is not going to keep up the quality of life in your country. Every day in the US, I see people complacently resting on the laurels of our "first world" label, doing nothing to maintain our standard of living while heaping dismissals and condescension on places like India and South America for not being "first world. Meanwhile, our standard of living is degrading, while theirs is improving, and we have less and less to base our bragging on. I can't help but be reminded of the old, 19th century, racist/xenophobic myth about primitive people who "slid back" from more advanced civilizations.

Personally, I detest these divisions into economic "worlds," but if affluent nations value their affluence, I think they should do more work to maintain it and a little less bragging and attitude copping.

I agree with both of these statements. As a matter of personal preference, sure, I like my own culture and my own way of doing things best, for me. But that does not mean that my own way of doing things is somehow inherently superior to someone else's way of doing things. I would have to make a direct comparison to see if one is indeed better than the other. I do make such comparisons every chance I get because I enjoy studying cultures, and I often find that the affluence of a nation is NOT the deciding factor in quality of life/services, unless the wealth difference is extreme -- I mean the difference between the affluence of, say, the UK which is a stable nation with a strong economy versus rural Africa which is wracked by the effects of climate disasters, civil wars, and lack of infrastructure.

Excellent. Harking back to an earlier point (Seathorn I think,) Australia survived a pretty severe drought which slashed a lot of agricultural production, but it didn't hurt us the way it hurts subsistence farming economies (i.e. people starve.) We had excess before that, plus we could have afforded to net-import food based on other economic strengths.

Note, I'm trying to agree with and add to what you're saying there. The extreme wealth difference is the difference between losing the farm to the bank, and losing your kids because you can't feed them.

But to assume that things are better in a country just because it is ranked as "first world" is simply stupid. I refer anyone who thinks otherwise to many years of reports on healthcare, infant mortality and education in the US.

The "first world" is not an all-expenses-paid, all-services-included club. Just calling yourself "first world" is not going to keep up the quality of life in your country. Every day in the US, I see people complacently resting on the laurels of our "first world" label, doing nothing to maintain our standard of living while heaping dismissals and condescension on places like India and South America for not being "first world. Meanwhile, our standard of living is degrading, while theirs is improving, and we have less and less to base our bragging on.

Good. When it starts to hurt, we'll go back to trying hard.

I don't believe world wealth/poverty is a zero-sum game, but it's not a win-win either. Recent measures of affluence in the 'first world' are very heavily affected by consumer goods becoming steadily cheaper, and we know why that's happening, don't we?

I'm not sure about there, but in Australia wages are falling in terms of purchasing power for food and rent/mortgages. Yet we're content with a growing economy based on what are really luxuries. That can only go so far before we realize that we're not as well off as we used to be.

I can't help but be reminded of the old, 19th century, racist/xenophobic myth about primitive people who "slid back" from more advanced civilizations.

Er, what was that?

Personally, I detest these divisions into economic "worlds," but if affluent nations value their affluence, I think they should do more work to maintain it and a little less bragging and attitude copping.

Personally, I don't much value affluence, beyond the distinction you made before. I don't want to see people starving, or starve myself, but above the average level of affluence I don't see "having more" as anything but symbolic competition. The gratification in having an expensive car or your own pool is largely in thinking it marks one as being better than the neighbour who doesn't.

Perhaps this whole "first world is better" thing is just competitive symbolism, scaled up from "my family" to "my country."

Excellent. Harking back to an earlier point (Seathorn I think,) Australia survived a pretty severe drought which slashed a lot of agricultural production, but it didn't hurt us the way it hurts subsistence farming economies (i.e. people starve.) We had excess before that, plus we could have afforded to net-import food based on other economic strengths.

Note, I'm trying to agree with and add to what you're saying there. The extreme wealth difference is the difference between losing the farm to the bank, and losing your kids because you can't feed them.



Good. When it starts to hurt, we'll go back to trying hard.

I don't believe world wealth/poverty is a zero-sum game, but it's not a win-win either. Recent measures of affluence in the 'first world' are very heavily affected by consumer goods becoming steadily cheaper, and we know why that's happening, don't we?

I'm not sure about there, but in Australia wages are falling in terms of purchasing power for food and rent/mortgages. Yet we're content with a growing economy based on what are really luxuries. That can only go so far before we realize that we're not as well off as we used to be.



Er, what was that?



Personally, I don't much value affluence, beyond the distinction you made before. I don't want to see people starving, or starve myself, but above the average level of affluence I don't see "having more" as anything but symbolic competition. The gratification in having an expensive car or your own pool is largely in thinking it marks one as being better than the neighbour who doesn't.

Perhaps this whole "first world is better" thing is just competitive symbolism, scaled up from "my family" to "my country."
I agree with everything you say here. Thanks for the additional insights.

The situation is similar in the US, where the real buying power of wages is dropping, but people still spend significant sums on luxuries, while basic quality of life becomes lessened. It is so not-sustainable that the US "credit crunch" and mortgage loan crisis is a direct result of it, according to many financial experts. It sometimes seems as if living in an "affluent" nation makes people think they themselves are rich.

As for that "sliding back from a more advanced civilization" thing, it was a weird notion that I think first popped up in the 19th century, and no, it wasn't at all too racist or elitist (ahem). Pompous-ass white academics would look at Mayan and Aztec ruins, for instance, compare them to the living conditions of modern people in Central America and dismiss the modern people as "primitives" who "slid back" from the "higher culture" of the past, essentially blaming the modern people for being poorer than Europeans and conveniently forgetting all the intervening events that led to culture change over time, while implying that the modern people had somehow gotten dumber than their ancestors. Apparently, the assumption was that, if they had been "first world" once, they should still be "first world" today, but in fact, that's kind of not how it works.

Note, in keeping with the OP, that weird, old-fashioned idea also assumed that the lives of modern people in Central America are "primitive," which is kind of a problematical term, imo. I mean, can't we say that a pencil is a primitive tool, but is it not often the best tool for the job, and is it not elegant and functional in its design? Carl Sagan once made a comment in one of his books (might have been Broca's Brain) in which he took a jab at this very way of thinking, to the effect that it is not wise to assume that people who don't know the difference between a Buick and a Cadillac must be stupid or backward.

As for that "sliding back from a more advanced civilization" thing, it was a weird notion that I think first popped up in the 19th century, and no, it wasn't at all too racist or elitist (ahem). Pompous-ass white academics would look at Mayan and Aztec ruins, for instance, compare them to the living conditions of modern people in Central America and dismiss the modern people as "primitives" who "slid back" from the "higher culture" of the past, essentially blaming the modern people for being poorer than Europeans and conveniently forgetting all the intervening events that led to culture change over time, while implying that the modern people had somehow gotten dumber than their ancestors. Apparently, the assumption was that, if they had been "first world" once, they should still be "first world" today, but in fact, that's kind of not how it works.

Ah, the Mayans. That make sense now. There isn't a convincing explanation even now, I suppose they were just guessing and in so doing exposed their own assumptions.

Why bother? You set the terms of this debate, and it's essentially unfair, because of course you can prove that any other poster makes assumptions. The 'terms of the debate' are about assumptions directly related to whatever you conceive the 'third world' to be. Not about making assumptions in general. Not everyone in the 'first world' makes these assumptions. Generally people who have travelled a bit, and ventured outside of the tourist areas, realise that certain things they have taken for granted as being true aren't always so. It can be a jarring experience, but on the whole, I think it's a good one. You learn to stop taking things for granted, especially when it comes to declaring your own society 'the best in every way'.

That's kind of inevitable when you use the expression "third world" in the OP. You basically challenged people to generalize, then attack them when they do! I said 'third world/developing world/majority world/global south or whatever you wish to call it'. I used a wide range of accepted terminology in order to get my point across. In no way was this a 'challenge to generalize'. In fact, in my OP I pointed out that all of these terms tend to be too general, when you have situations where all nations in those groupings are lumped together as being the same. In fact the whole freaking OP was about the problem of generalising. How you managed to get the complete opposite from that, I'm not entirely sure.

Myridomisia you dismissed as giving incomplete anecdotal evidence about health care (and yes, Myri did of course generalize from that, but it was copious personal experience).

Yootopia chose to concentrate on education (which you also mentioned in the OP, so that's quite fair.) You challenged them to give examples, and they did ... now you're saying those are inadequate. Of course they are inadequate! Myrm offered lame personal anecdotes, proving nothing except that he believes generalising to be perfectly acceptable even though he grudgingly admited later that perhaps not all 'third world countries' treat patients with cow dung and witchcraft.

Yootopia offered 'evidence' after much nudging, and what he offered was hardly useful. He stands by the belief that third world = worse than in the first world, across the board. Using education as an example, I was pointing out that market value can not be the only indicator of the worth of an education...if you want to see the QUALITY of the education, you need to compare the curriculum. All he did was look up how many specialisations there are in the engineering program at a Santiago University, compared to the many more specialisations in a University in BC and go "voila, more in BC, therefore BC better, I win!"

Damn rights that's inadequate.

I'd be a lot more interested if you would give examples yourself. So far, I've noticed only a comment or two about the fresh and distinctive diet in SOME third world countries (though can you doubt that Cubans might have a narrower range of available foods and might get a bit bored with lobster and mangoes?)

But more relevantly, since the thread has returned again and again to education ... perhaps you could put up some examples yourself, of what you recognize as a third-world country, and how it provides a better education (more satisfying and useful to the students) than some specific "first-world" country.

APEGGA (http://www.apegga.org/Applicants/IEG/toc.html), the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysists of Alberta routinely assesses the credentials of foreign professionals in order to determine whether they meet provincial standards. I've dealt with them before when working at having my brother-in-law's degree recognised in Canada. Certain agreements have been made with foreign universities which helps speed up the process...the time was taken to assess the curriculum offered in those universities in order to determine if they were equivalent to what is taught here in Alberta, so those applicants tend to get fast-tracked.

Speaking to the Registration office of APEGGA, I was informed that it is very rare for applicants to be refused, as generally, if this kind of education is offered abroad, it tends to be 'up to snuff', regardless of being offered in 'third world conditions'.

As well, the Registration office noted that the majority of foreign applicants being registered in Alberta come from China, Iran, Pakistan and India. Third world countries no? Yet producing graduates of first world calibre.

I think the main point is that you, as a first world resident, can not immediately assume that you are more educated than a person residing in the 'third world'. Just because there are people living in crushing poverty and ignorance, in much greater numbers than here, does not mean that your assumptions are valid. Hence the title of this thread.

Chile (http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=268090505&depth=3&infobase=iwde.nfo&record={7D95946A}&softpage=PL_frame) has mandatory, constitutionally protected schooling for 12 years as of 2003 (the stats in the link are a bit dated). Students on average are in school for 13.5 years, compared to Canada (http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=268091064&depth=3&infobase=iwde.nfo&record={7D959332}&softpage=PL_frame), where mandatory education ends at 10 years and average schooling is 14.8 years. Not THAT big a difference.

However, you still cannot tell from those stats whether Chilean students are learning more, or less than Canadian students. To do that you'd have to look at the state curriculum (http://www.ibe.unesco.org/countries/countryDossier/cdChile_docs.htm) in both (http://www.ibe.unesco.org/countries/countryDossier/cdCanada_docs.htm) countries.

The entire point is, the issue is much more complex than arrogant assumptions of superiority. The fact is, the schooling in Chile is provided at levels very close to what we have in Canada. If you took high school graduates from Chile, and from Canada, and attempted to rank then in terms of overall skill level and knowledge, I doubt very highly that you'd be able to definitively say 'Canadians are better educated'.

Then again, Chile is not Sierra Leone is not Iran is not China is not Sao Tome.

The point is, you really don't know, and can not assume just because you live in a nation ranked as 'wealthy' that it directly follows everything in your nation is better than anything found elsewhere.

I'll talk about things other than education when I catch my breath and have a coffee:P

The OP was about the education system, not about one particular university.
No, the OP was about believing that by virtue of living in a wealthy nation, you automatically have goods and services of a higher quality than what is available in the 'third world'. Education was given as an example, and since Yootopia chose to pursue it, we got into more detail. This 'but but you said in the OP and you can't say anything else' shit is old.

You NEED to get specific. That's the point of not making assumptions. You run into a 'foreigner' in the street. What do you do? Do you really look at him or her and think, 'well they were born abroad, they are clearly less educated, less healthy and less whatever else than me'? Seriously? You think that's a valid position to take?

You run into someone while YOU are abroad. Are you going to make those assumptions there too? How fucking arrogant are you? Seriously?

People go to 'third world countries' and really do carry this baggage around. Not everyone mind you...but when they do, it's nearly palpable. When you truly hold the rest of the world in disdain, it shows...and it makes you look like an ass, especially when you simply cannot admit that you know...this food IS better than what I can get at home or...these people know a hell of a lot about global politics and how is that possibly since OBVIOUSLY their education is deficient...

It's not about, as some idiots here have suggested, declaring the third world better than the first in some bizarre and pointless turn-around. It's about not letting that sense of superiority lull you into ignoring the degradation of your own systems, or lead you into believing that no one does it better than you, therefore there is nothing you can learn from them.

China isnt doing that. India isn't doing that. Chile isn't doing that. Indonesia isn't doing that...and they are advancing by leaps and bounds while we stagnate, or allow our systems to slowly crumble.

No, the OP was about believing that by virtue of living in a wealthy nation, you automatically have goods and services of a higher quality than what is available in the 'third world'.

It is absolutely impossible to measure how good a public service is without generalising. You have to say how good it is on average, just because there may be a few good outliers (a minority of good universities for instance), doesn't mean that the general service is good. Thats what you were doing, you were arguing about one specific university, that's not enough to refute whether the system is good or bad in general.


Education was given as an example, and since Yootopia chose to pursue it, we got into more detail. This 'but but you said in the OP and you can't say anything else' shit is old.


Again, in what I quoted, you weren't pursuing education in general, but the quality of one university. Unless you manage to link it and use it to show that the whole education system is good, it can't be relevant.


You NEED to get specific. That's the point of not making assumptions. You run into a 'foreigner' in the street. What do you do? Do you really look at him or her and think, 'well they were born abroad, they are clearly less educated, less healthy and less whatever else than me'? Seriously? You think that's a valid position to take?


Nobody makes that assumption. The assumption is that the education system or whatever is bad. Just because you live in a country with a bad education system, doesn't actually make it impossible to get a good one, it just makes it harder. It's fair to assume that if a country does not have much money to fund education, then in general the system will suffer.
You run into someone while YOU are abroad. Are you going to make those assumptions there too? How fucking arrogant are you? Seriously?


People go to 'third world countries' and really do carry this baggage around. Not everyone mind you...but when they do, it's nearly palpable. When you truly hold the rest of the world in disdain, it shows...and it makes you look like an ass, especially when you simply cannot admit that you know...this food IS better than what I can get at home or...these people know a hell of a lot about global politics and how is that possibly since OBVIOUSLY their education is deficient...


Well, I don't think many people do do this actually.

It's about not letting that sense of superiority lull you into ignoring the degradation of your own systems, or lead you into believing that no one does it better than you, therefore there is nothing you can learn from them.


I'm not exactly clear on what you mean here.


China isn't doing that. India isn't doing that. Chile isn't doing that. Indonesia isn't doing that...and they are advancing by leaps and bounds while we stagnate, or allow our systems to slowly crumble.

Arguably, but then they aren't third world countries, as far as I'm concerned anyway. China, India, Chile and Indonesia still have a long way to go though.

It is absolutely impossible to measure how good a public service is without generalising. You have to say how good it is on average, just because there may be a few good outliers (a minority of good universities for instance), doesn't mean that the general service is good. Thats what you were doing, you were arguing about one specific university, that's not enough to refute whether the system is good or bad in general.
Yootopia brought up the specific universities as though to prove his belief that the education in Chile is OBVIOUSLY worse than it is in Canada.

I have provided links that point out that the length of schooling and average time actually spent in school is fairly equal in both Chile and Canada. I have provided curricular links, which I'm sorry, I'm not about to chart out for you. The goals set in the state mandated mathematics curriculum, for example, is similar in all levels in both countries. Chile has a population roughly half that of Canada, the majority of people living in the capital of Santiago. There are numerous post-secondary institutions in Chile.

Let's look at some more information:55% (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1520) of children (of applicable ages) in Chile are enrolled in a pre-primary school compared to about 65% (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1240) in Canada. Primary education? 90% in Chile compared to 99% in Canada. Secondary education? 55% compared to Canada's 89%. (although remember, mandatory education in Chile has been increased to 12 years, which will likely impact future enrollment rates). Now, tertiary enrollment, which is what we've been focusing on...in Chile, 48% (males and females roughly equal) compared to Canada's 51% for males, 70% for females.

You stated early that 'hardly anyone in Chile can afford to go to University.

Nearly 50% of those eligible to go to University do, and that's 'hardly any'?

Also, consider that vocational training is offered in the secondary level for Chileans, meaning you can specialise in a trade in secondary school, or you can focus on getting into tertiary education. The lower enrollment in Canada of males to females in tertiary institutions is for similar reasons.

But you wouldn't know that had I not brought this to your attention. Yootopia didn't know this. Instead of admitting it, however, Yootopia felt secure in the belief that 'Chile is a third world country, therefore Canadian education is ahead of it by....' what was his term? "Fucking miles"?

False. False and arrogant. Canadian percentages are consistently ahead of Chilean ones, but not nearly by the margin suggested by Yootopia, or by those who like to look at 'everyone but as' as 'third world'.



Again, in what I quoted, you weren't pursuing education in general, but the quality of one university. Unless you manage to link it and use it to show that the whole education system is good, it can't be relevant. Done.


Nobody makes that assumption. The assumption is that the education system or whatever is bad. Just because you live in a country with a bad education system, doesn't actually make it impossible to get a good one, it just makes it harder. It's fair to assume that if a country does not have much money to fund education, then in general the system will suffer. You have absolutely no background, or information to determine how education is funded abroad. Can we accept this as true? I mean...unless you actually do, in which case I'd love to hear about it.

Knowing that you have no clue as to how education is funded in any given country, you are STILL going to be making assumptions without factual basis.

You can look at a poor country and say with a fair amount of certainty, "people in that country probably don't have the same kind of buying power as I do. Were they forced to pay for schooling, they probably would not be able to access education".

However, you have no idea what is paying for the system of education. Education in Chile, as in Cuba, is free for 12 years, removing a HUGE barrier to education.

You argue, further, that a poor country can't fund a great education system. Well, break that down. At the pre-primary, primary and secondary levels you can not make that statement. What state-of-the-art equipment do you really need to provide an education at those levels? It might be NICER if the kids had laptops, or even just a group of computers for the whole school...but it does not guarantee a better level of education. Oh no! No graphing calculators for secondary level high math...they might have to do it with pencil and paper!

At the tertiary level, there will be certain specialities that need more advanced and expensive materials. Some countries cannot afford that expense. Some don't, and the tertiary systems are privately funded. Others invest in that techology (as is done in the health care sector in the Phillipines).

Interestingly...the Phillipines has built up their medical education in order to train its citizens for work abroad. The Phillipines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances) is 5th in the world for remittances, receiving an estimated $12 billion dollars a year from its citizens working abroad. And that's a lowball number...remittances informally are almost certainly that amount again. The investment the filipino government put into its tertiary system of education has paid off in spades.

If you don't look at these complexities, and blanket generalise, tell me...what purpose does your generalising truly serve? It is THAT necessary to hold onto that sense of privilege? That belief in superiority? Why? What does it do? I'm not speaking specifically to you here, but rather to those people who, like New Mitanni, just refuse to believe that perhaps...just perhaps...things aren't that far ahead here.

Well, I don't think many people do do this actually.
Ugh. Well I won't bore you with anecdotes, but yeah, they do...and it's the Russians and Italians who are beating out the USians for pure arrogant stupidity in this regard, in my experience.


I'm not exactly clear on what you mean here.
Well I've been trying to make this point over and over again, so I'll try again.

When you think everything you have is the best, you don't see a need to improve things.

If you automatically assume that everything in 'the third world' is inferior, you will not look to the third world for possible solutions if you do manage to realise that you have a problem.

That is a foolish stance to take, because it chokes innovation, and encourages stagnation.



Arguably, but then they aren't third world countries, as far as I'm concerned anyway. China, India, Chile and Indonesia still have a long way to go though.
As GoG said, this is an excellent topic. I agree that it is moronic to lump Chile in with Haiti for example. The differences are extreme. However, ask the average person where they would place Chile, and they will answer 'the third world'. We haven't seemed to have evolved much beyond this insufficient duality.

Even if we did, however, place Chile somewhere above Haiti, but still below Canada, I think we'd would still have the attitude I'm discussing. I could be wrong...but as you've pointed out, it seems to be an expansion of 'my family is the best' to 'my country is the best'. It's baffling...because even supposedly intelligent people can espouse this philosophy, basing it on little more than 'well it's obvious isn't it?'

No. It's really not that obvious.

Yootopia brought up the specific universities as though to prove his belief that the education in Chile is OBVIOUSLY worse than it is in Canada.

I have provided links that point out that the length of schooling and average time actually spent in school is fairly equal in both Chile and Canada. I have provided curricular links, which I'm sorry, I'm not about to chart out for you. The goals set in the state mandated mathematics curriculum, for example, is similar in all levels in both countries. Chile has a population roughly half that of Canada, the majority of people living in the capital of Santiago. There are numerous post-secondary institutions in Chile.

Let's look at some more information:55% (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1520) of children (of applicable ages) in Chile are enrolled in a pre-primary school compared to about 65% (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1240) in Canada. Primary education? 90% in Chile compared to 99% in Canada. Secondary education? 55% compared to Canada's 89%. (although remember, mandatory education in Chile has been increased to 12 years, which will likely impact future enrollment rates). Now, tertiary enrollment, which is what we've been focusing on...in Chile, 48% (males and females roughly equal) compared to Canada's 51% for males, 70% for females.


See below:


You stated early that 'hardly anyone in Chile can afford to go to University. Nearly 50% of those eligible to go to University do, and that's 'hardly any'?


I said the majority, but this was under the assumption that Chile is actually a third world country, an assumption in itself which I actually think is probably not true. Indeed, the fact that many can afford would suggest it actually isn't a third world country.


Also, consider that vocational training is offered in the secondary level for Chileans, meaning you can specialise in a trade in secondary school, or you can focus on getting into tertiary education. The lower enrollment in Canada of males to females in tertiary institutions is for similar reasons.

But you wouldn't know that had I not brought this to your attention. Yootopia didn't know this. Instead of admitting it, however, Yootopia felt secure in the belief that 'Chile is a third world country, therefore Canadian education is ahead of it by....' what was his term? "Fucking miles"?


Well, Yootopia and I would disagree then on what constitutes a third world country.


Done.


But it was done under the assumption that Chile is 'third world'.


You have absolutely no background, or information to determine how education is funded abroad. Can we accept this as true? I mean...unless you actually do, in which case I'd love to hear about it.


Not for specific countries, no.


Knowing that you have no clue as to how education is funded in any given country,
you are STILL going to be making assumptions without factual basis.


It doesn't matter how it is funded, you can't get away from the fact that it needs to be funded.


You can look at a poor country and say with a fair amount of certainty, "people in that country probably don't have the same kind of buying power as I do. Were they forced to pay for schooling, they probably would not be able to access education".


I'm not just using one factor, such as people. But every factor, if people are poor, the government has less revenue, if the government has less revenue, it has less to fund education. Whether the funding comes from the people or for the government, or a mixture like in your examples below, there is still a lack of money going in (if it is third world).


However, you have no idea what is paying for the system of education. Education in Chile, as in Cuba, is free for 12 years, removing a HUGE barrier to education.


This doesn't change anything. It just means that the money is coming from the government to subsidise what the people are paying, but the government (if it is a third world country), wont be able to fund it well. Either way, the education system will suffer.


You argue, further, that a poor country can't fund a great education system. Well, break that down. At the pre-primary, primary and secondary levels you can not make that statement. What state-of-the-art equipment do you really need to provide an education at those levels?

Not much, but you need to pay for the employees of course, as well as good teacher training.


It might be NICER if the kids had laptops, or even just a group of computers for the whole school...but it does not guarantee a better level of education. Oh no! No graphing calculators for secondary level high math...they might have to do it with pencil and paper!


Again, money will need to go into employment for teachers, as well as good facilities for the buildings (good toilets, first aid, good heating etc...), which is still a lot of money.


At the tertiary level, there will be certain specialities that need more advanced and expensive materials. Some countries cannot afford that expense. Some don't, and the tertiary systems are privately funded. Others invest in that techology (as is done in the health care sector in the Phillipines).

Interestingly...the Phillipines has built up their medical education in order to train its citizens for work abroad. The Phillipines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances) is 5th in the world for remittances, receiving an estimated $12 billion dollars a year from its citizens working abroad. And that's a lowball number...remittances informally are almost certainly that amount again. The investment the filipino government put into its tertiary system of education has paid off in spades.

If you don't look at these complexities, and blanket generalise, tell me...what purpose does your generalising truly serve? It is THAT necessary to hold onto that sense of privilege? That belief in superiority? Why? What does it do? I'm not speaking specifically to you here, but rather to those people who, like New Mitanni, just refuse to believe that perhaps...just perhaps...things aren't that far ahead here.


I'm not trying to hold onto any sense of superiority here, I'm just trying to get the facts straight. Again, technology is only a small part of government funding that goes into schools. Secondly, I don't think the Philippines is third world.


Well I've been trying to make this point over and over again, so I'll try again.

When you think everything you have is the best, you don't see a need to improve things.


Just because you think something is better than something else, doesn't mean you think it's perfect without room for improvement.


If you automatically assume that everything in 'the third world' is inferior, you will not look to the third world for possible solutions if you do manage to realise that you have a problem.


But the very definition of third world, at least to me, to an extent is that most systems are 'inferior', or rather less well funded and developed.


That is a foolish stance to take, because it chokes innovation, and encourages stagnation.


I'm not so sure, perhaps if you believe that it couldn't get any better.


As GoG said, this is an excellent topic. I agree that it is moronic to lump Chile in with Haiti for example. The differences are extreme. However, ask the average person where they would place Chile, and they will answer 'the third world'. We haven't seemed to have evolved much beyond this insufficient duality.


Well, I don't know, I don't really like using that term at all.


Even if we did, however, place Chile somewhere above Haiti, but still below Canada, I think we'd would still have the attitude I'm discussing. I could be wrong...but as you've pointed out, it seems to be an expansion of 'my family is the best' to 'my country is the best'. It's baffling...because even supposedly intelligent people can espouse this philosophy, basing it on little more than 'well it's obvious isn't it?'

No. It's really not that obvious.

But if that is practically your definition of the word, then well you have to think that it's true by definition. But yeah I agree broadly that its silly to have a pissing match spouting "my country is better than yours, blah blah blah".

I come across a certain attitude quite often; one that most often hasn't been developed consciously, or has even been examined by the people holding it. It's more of an assumption, a sense, something that 'just is' until actually brought out and eyeballed. I'm talking about the belief among people in the 'first world' (or developed world or minority world or global north, whichever term you prefer) that everything in the 'third world' (or developing/majority/ global south) is 'less good'.

People often assume that, for example, the education system in all of the 'developing world' is not nearly as good as it is in the developed world. Chile is lumped in with Sierra Leone for example. Oh, you might know nothing about the actual education system in either of those countries, but it appears obvious that it can't be as good as say...Canada...because then they probably wouldn't be 'third world', right?

Overall, there might be more literate, or highly educated people in the 'first world'...but one also needs to take into account the many highly skilled and educated people who come to the first world because of lack of opportunity in their own nations. The Philippines, for example, 'exports' many highly trained medical staff to first world nations. Meanwhile, there are school systems in Canada that are an absolute embarrassment...whose children perform at levels far below some children in the third world.

The point is not to just beat on the first world...it is to recognise that we can't just sit, feeling all superior, while our various essential systems go to shit. Having a vague sense of 'we're on top' just doesn't cut it. It's complacent, and it's fucking annoying. So do you ever question that feeling of 'we are the best'? Do you ever consider than in some ways, it's not true at all? Or are you the type to just feel smug and secure in the 'knowledge' that it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'?

I don't question that feeling of "we are the best". I am fully aware of what it took to become the best and the sacrifices my ancestors made to make it be so. I know that we have suffered the growing pains to be where we are and many paid the ultimate price for it too. I am not ashamed of it, nor do I apologize for it. I am very thankful to the powers that be too that for whatever reason I am fortunate enough to be where I am. I don't feel sorry for third world nations, they will evolve accordingly in their own time just as we have....or not. :p

Chile has mandatory, constitutionally protected schooling for 12 years as of 2003 (the stats in the link are a bit dated). Students on average are in school for 13.5 years, compared to Canada, where mandatory education ends at 10 years and average schooling is 14.8 years. Not THAT big a difference.

However, you still cannot tell from those stats whether Chilean students are learning more, or less than Canadian students. To do that you'd have to look at the state curriculum (http://www.ibe.unesco.org/countries/countryDossier/cdChile_docs.htm) in both (http://www.ibe.unesco.org/countries/countryDossier/cdCanada_docs.htm) countries.

The entire point is, the issue is much more complex than arrogant assumptions of superiority. The fact is, the schooling in Chile is provided at levels very close to what we have in Canada. If you took high school graduates from Chile, and from Canada, and attempted to rank then in terms of overall skill level and knowledge, I doubt very highly that you'd be able to definitively say 'Canadians are better educated'.

Then again, Chile is not Sierra Leone is not Iran is not China is not Sao Tome.

The point is, you really don't know, and can not assume just because you live in a nation ranked as 'wealthy' that it directly follows everything in your nation is better than anything found elsewhere.

I'll talk about things other than education when I catch my breath and have a coffee:P
I'll agree that it's possible to find a good Chilean engineer, but I'll bet he's been educated in the United States. We could even compare grades and it would be inconclusive. The only conclusive determination would be performance on standardized tests. Have anything like that handy?

My point is that one has to start somewhere in their assumptions about relative worth and assuming that things are worth more, or are better when they come from from a wealthy nation is a pretty good generalization.

I'll agree that it's possible to find a good Chilean engineer, but I'll bet he's been educated in the United States. We could even compare grades and it would be inconclusive. The only conclusive determination would be performance on standardized tests. Have anything like that handy?

My point is that one has to start somewhere in their assumptions about relative worth and assuming that things are worth more, or are better when they come from from a wealthy nation is a pretty good generalization.

If that were truly the case, the US would have a positive trade balance.

It doesn't: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_indicators/december_2002/Economy/html/US_Balance_of_Trade_in_Goods_and_Services.html

If that were truly the case, the US would have a positive trade balance.

It doesn't: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_indicators/december_2002/Economy/html/US_Balance_of_Trade_in_Goods_and_Services.html
Ah, but our dollar is worth squat so we have more purchasing power!

And I'd still rather practice engineering here, than in Chile. Okay, I haven't been to Chile, but it's close to Brazil and I've worked with engineers there.

I find I prefer to live in places where every medical condition is not treated with cow manure and witchcraft. Or just not treated at all. Having been to a number of third world countries, I AM pretty secure in the knowledge that "it's just obvious everything is better in the 'First World'".

I'm willing to admit that there may be exceptions, but there are always exceptions.

You know, cow manure is a very good anti-septic. :p

I'll agree that it's possible to find a good Chilean engineer, but I'll bet he's been educated in the United States. We could even compare grades and it would be inconclusive.

Why would you make an assumption like that? Oh right, because you make a virtue out of not thinking critically about people from developing nations.

The only conclusive determination would be performance on standardized tests. Have anything like that handy?

The title of the thread is "Check your assumptions", not "Check my assumptions because I'm too lazy". So maybe you could look for them.

My point is that one has to start somewhere in their assumptions about relative worth and assuming that things are worth more, or are better when they come from from a wealthy nation is a pretty good generalization.

Why does one have to operate from assumptions? Why can't we start from facts? If things are better when they come from a developing nation, does that mean that Canadian bananas are better than Costa Rican bananas? Does that mean that the USA has a lower infant mortality rate than the Cuba? Does Sweden make better rum than Jamaica?

Who won the Vietnam War? The well-paid and well-equipped western forces, or the guys in black pyjamas using sticks smeared with feces? Those assumptions aren't looking too smart anymore, are they?

You know, cow manure is a very good anti-septic. :p
I'm sure there's a little bit of benefit in many homeopathic treatments. Turns out from the MRI that I needed an ACL polished, or something like that. Arthroscopic surgery isn't something I'd want to have done in Nigeria. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Chile or Cuba. Nope, not me.

Ah, but our dollar is worth squat so we have more purchasing power!

And I'd still rather practice engineering here, than in Chile. Okay, I haven't been to Chile, but it's close to Brazil and I've worked with engineers there.

Yet another example of the idiotic assumptions that Neesika described and Myrmy continues to exemplify.

See below:

I said the majority, but this was under the assumption that Chile is actually a third world country, an assumption in itself which I actually think is probably not true. Indeed, the fact that many can afford would suggest it actually isn't a third world country.
Well good. You've gotten over your assumption. I would only hope that others would spend a bit of time to do the same before spouting off about conditions in a world they have arbitrarily labelled 'third world'.


Well, Yootopia and I would disagree then on what constitutes a third world country. I suggest starting a thread on the topic. I would but I'm sneaking enough time away from class as is.



But it was done under the assumption that Chile is 'third world'. Not really my assumption. I haven't created a new system of categorization, but I am well aware that Chile is far from a 'third world hellhole'. You assumed the contrary, and have changed your mind somewhat. Others just assume and leave it at that.



Not for specific countries, no.

It doesn't matter how it is funded, you can't get away from the fact that it needs to be funded. Well no shit. HOW it is funded is of incredible importance however. If the Canadian government, overnight, decided to step out of education and convert it to a purely private system, suddenly education would become less accessible. It would still be funded, albeit directly by those attending school (or their parents or their banks offering loans etc.) Just because GDP is low, doesn't mean you can compare countries will similar low GDPs and know anything about their education system.



I'm not just using one factor, such as people. But every factor, if people are poor, the government has less revenue, if the government has less revenue, it has less to fund education. Whether the funding comes from the people or for the government, or a mixture like in your examples below, there is still a lack of money going in (if it is third world). Point is, lack of money does not automatically mean shitty educational system. You can run a fairly modest system with high standards....it just takes some know-how. Visa versa, tonnes of money and shiny technology do not guarantee you're turning out well educated students.


This doesn't change anythig. It just means that the money is coming from the government to subsidise what the people are paying, but the government (if it is a third world country), wont be able to fund it well. Either way, the education system will suffer.Not much, but you need to pay for the employees of course, as well as good teacher training. That does not in fact appear to be the case. No, these students don't have fancy equipment, or state-of-the-art facilities. And for your point about teacher salaries...well they aren't taking in what a Canadian teacher would, that's pretty obvious.

Chile could be making money hand over fist and that WILL NOT GUARANTEE EDUCATIONAL FUNDING. Shit, just look at Canada, where we've slashed educational funding...particularly in Alberta, where we are literally the economic powerhouse of the nation. Our infrastructure is crumbling, teachers are leaving the profession in an average of 5 years, and private fundraising has become a standard need to provide basic materials to students in many schools.

Chile is significantly poorer than Canada, but it allocates its funding differently, and focuses on education. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere...but even Cuba manages to afford a very good educational system despite its poverty. I'm not sure why you are still saying that poor country must = poorly funded education system. Not funded to OUR standards perhaps, but functionally funded in many cases, and functional beyond many assumptions.




I'm not trying to hold onto any sense of superiority here, I'm just trying to get the facts straight. Again, technology is only a small part of government funding that goes into schools. Secondly, I don't think the Philippines is third world. Well that's very nice you don't think the Philippines is a third world country. Did you think that before or is this another assumption you've challenged?

Nor am I accusing you of holding onto an attitude of superiority...it was a question I actually want you to consider in terms of those who actively DO cling to these notions. You at least have been willing to look into things a bit more which sort of negates the whole 'you're working from assumptions' part of the OP. Good, thank you. It's the entire point here. I just want people to actually THINK before they claim superiority.

Just because you think something is better than something else, doesn't mean you think it's perfect without room for improvement. I'm not saying 'better', I'm saying 'best'. When you think you're the best, what could you possibly improve on? And when you think something is inferior, why on earth would you look to it for ideas?

Look at alternative power sources and 'green low tech', for example. Villages in Bolivia have for years been capturing moisture from the mist in the mountains...they were previously dangerously low on potable water. In these isolated villages, telephone and power won't get to them for years yet, and the expense will be incredible. So using fairly low tech solar power (included solar ovens and solar panels) these villages have managed to provided themselves with sustainable power. Bolivia has also launched a biofuel program (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/12/bolivia-investing-in-biofuels-but-with-a-special-twist/).

For sure, they'd probably prefer the convenience of petroleum fuelled power...but they don't have the luxury. We continue to be gluttons because we can, and because our technology is 'the best'. Luckily more and more people are starting to realise that we can learn a lot from people living in poverty...because they come up with innovative solutions at low costs. We need that kind of innovative spirit back...and that will only come when we change our attitudes from 'it's the best, why change it' to dissatisfaction. Part of that is getting over the idea that 'third world hellholes' (of which I'm sorry, but Bolivia truly can be classified as) are inferior and have nothing to teach us.


But the very definition of third world, at least to me, to an extent is that most systems are 'inferior', or rather less well funded and developed. Well get over it. What kind of definition is that? On what are you basing this 'inferiority'? Before, you were basing it on assumed rates of funding. Once you saw that somehow the Chileans are managing to fund education, they suddenly stopped being third world in your mind.

You can have an inferior system that is extremely well funded. Good funding doesn't guarantee efficiency or quality. If you start classifying third world countries as 'only those with INFERIOR' systems, then I'll expect you to start explaining the criteria on which you are basing your conclusions. I'll also expect you to classify certain systems in the first world as 'inferior' if that classification in any way involves inefficiency and lack of quality. Then your whole classification system will be shot to shit.


I'm not so sure, perhaps if you believe that it couldn't get any better.


Well, I don't know, I don't really like using that term at all.

But if that is practically your definition of the word, then well you have to think that it's true by definition. But yeah I agree broadly that its silly to have a pissing match spouting "my country is better than yours, blah blah blah".
Well part of getting people to see that there even IS a need for a different classification system is getting them to first think that hey, maybe that classification system just doesn't work because of 'x' 'y' or 'z'. Part of that is the assumption of superior to inferior that most often informs the definitions of first world and third world. And the entire point of this thread has been to say...third world != inferior, and first world !=superior.

Not everyone agrees.

I don't question that feeling of "we are the best". I am fully aware of what it took to become the best and the sacrifices my ancestors made to make it be so. I know that we have suffered the growing pains to be where we are and many paid the ultimate price for it too. I am not ashamed of it, nor do I apologize for it. I am very thankful to the powers that be too that for whatever reason I am fortunate enough to be where I am. I don't feel sorry for third world nations, they will evolve accordingly in their own time just as we have....or not. :p

And here, Hydes...you have an example of not just thinking you're 'better' but thinking you're the best.

The obvious step for other, inferior nations to take, is to become like the best....like us...even if that step is manifestly inappropriate. Challenging the validity of being the 'best' is about challenging assumptions.

Ah, but our dollar is worth squat so we have more purchasing power!

And I'd still rather practice engineering here, than in Chile. Okay, I haven't been to Chile, but it's close to Brazil and I've worked with engineers there.

Purchasing power is important, but your products are obviously not worth more than the Chinese products. The Chinese are exporting lots to you and you're buying it up. However, if US products were really that good, then it should be the other way around. It isn't because the US products aren't that different from Chinese products. Both are prone to having faults and to having people trying to cheat you. Both are prone to glimpses of genius and mass production. They're not different products, because they're made in different countries. If they're different, it's because of the people behind them.

A much better argument for not practicing engineering in Chile would be that you do not know the language and have no intention of learning it. That would keep you from assuming that Chile is similar to Brazil.

Ah, but our dollar is worth squat so we have more purchasing power!

And I'd still rather practice engineering here, than in Chile. Okay, I haven't been to Chile, but it's close to Brazil and I've worked with engineers there.

I've been joking for a week with my boss now that Peruvian engineers are best, but that has largely to do with the fact that an unforeseen delay in his Peru trip led to me having to single-handedly run one of the competitions at our regional Science Olympiad for a few hours.

By third world most people recognise corrupt countries with a poor educational, social and economic system. So yes things in all third world countries (by that definition of it) ARE worse than in the developed world.

However to my mind the likes of Chile have not been third world countries (by that definition) for some time. Regardless of whether they are traditional third world coutries or not they are clearly on a different developmentallevel to the likes of Ethiopia and Rwanda. Honestly I feel it is YOU by continuing to lump these countries together who are the one doing the prejudicing here.

I'll agree that it's possible to find a good Chilean engineer, but I'll bet he's been educated in the United States. We could even compare grades and it would be inconclusive. The only conclusive determination would be performance on standardized tests. Have anything like that handy? And you'd bet wrong. Most of the Chilean engineers being accredited in Alberta were trained in Chile. I know, I've been working on their visa permits :P

As I pointed out, the Association in charge of registering foreign professionals is also in charge of ensuring that their credentials match Canadian credentials. Since the Association, as a legislated administrative body is legally responsible for the registrations they issue they damn well better make sure that a Chilean engineer knows as much as his Canadian counterpart....because they are liable if he or she is not.

Standardized tests are just a part of it, they also have to look at the curriculum in their home institution, and the licensing requirments there, to establish if they are simliar enough to warrant accreditation here.

My point is that one has to start somewhere in their assumptions about relative worth and assuming that things are worth more, or are better when they come from from a wealthy nation is a pretty good generalization.And what good is that generalisation? Engineers from Chile, China, Iran, Pakistan and India are consistently as good as Canadian engineers. So your assuming the contrary does you very little good. If you were a policy maker your assumption would deny them work here in Canada, and considering the crisis we are in in terms of lack of professional engineers, that would very directly and negatively impact the economic growth of Alberta. Tsk!

Assumptions are only worthwhile if they take you somewhere. If you assume the water in Chile is unfit to drink, you're being safe...you can find out whether it is or not, and not risk your health. If you assume engineers in Chile are substandard...fine. But check your assumptions, find the facts. If it doesn't matter to you, that's okay, stick with your assumptions...but at least realise...you very well could be wrong. It is simplistic to say 'wealthy = better'. Maybe you thrive on simplicity, I don't really know. I tend to prefer people with better critical thinking skills.

Ah, but our dollar is worth squat so we have more purchasing power!

And I'd still rather practice engineering here, than in Chile. Okay, I haven't been to Chile, but it's close to Brazil and I've worked with engineers there.

Well obviously you'd earn more as an engineer in the US than working in Chile...unless you were being paid by a US firm to work in Chile (which is a pretty sweet deal).

So define things better. If what really matters to you is earning power...great. A Chilean engineer will earn as much as you working in the US (assuming acreditation), and thus will be an an even footing when in the US. The reverse is true.

But if you are talking about QUALITY of education, you can not simply assume that a poor country has poor education. Agreed?

Here's something to chew. I personally know two Indian family who sent their son to study in Indian school to aim for the IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) there, despite the fathers having migrated here, studied here and having settled here more or less (Green cards, own homes etc).

They actually argued with me that Indian schools are better until the undergrad level.

By third world most people recognise corrupt countries with a poor educational, social and economic system. So yes things in all third world countries (by that definition of it) ARE worse than in the developed world.

However to my mind the likes of Chile have not been third world countries (by that definition) for some time. Regardless of whether they are traditional third world coutries or not they are clearly on a different developmentallevel to the likes of Ethiopia and Rwanda. Honestly I feel it is YOU by continuing to lump these countries together who are the one doing the prejudicing here.Uh.....huh.

Hidden in my asking people to question their assumptions about what they consider to be 'third world countries' is the message that 'you should lump all non-'first world' countries together'.

Brilliant!

Listen, you can go on with your 'no true scotsman' bullshit all you want, changing the definition as you go, as I introduce evidence of SOMETHING not worse in say...even Rwanda. Because you'd have to keep changing your definition if your defition of third world is 'worse'. Or I could show you instances of extreme corruption even in my own first world country...and then what would you do? Change the definition again. Sorry. I don't think your definitions is that good.

The fact is, 'third world' has a fairly accepted meaning, and a fairly accepted usage. Prejudicial? Even stupid? Certainly. But don't pretend that the term I've used is somehow my creation, or part of a stereotype I am perpetrating.

One post puppet.

*snip*


Very well said Muravyets.

I've suggested before, in other contexts, that feelings of class, culture, etc, superiority spiral outward from the self. Each person tends to feel that I am best, therefore everything associated with me is best, by association. The me-ness quotient adds to the goodness of a thing. So regardless of whether a country is first, second or third world, things have to get pretty badly fucked up before people will stop feeling that their own country has the best of all desirable stuff/services/customs.

However, that said, there is another ego-gratifying aspect to first-world attitude copping that is at work here, imo. It is the assumption that we got to where we are and have what we have because we are superior people. The foundational assumption behind assumptions of first-world better-ness is that the vagaries of history and luck have nothing to do with a nation's rise to first-world status, but that it is first-world because its people are first-rate.

It's really a chain of self-serving assumptions: I am wonderful --> my stuff is wonderful --> my country is wonderful --> we have wonderful stuff because we are wonderful --> since we are wonderful, everything we do/produce is wonderful, too.

On the flip side of that is the assumption that other countries don't have the same stuff because they are not wonderful --> if they were wonderful, they'd have the same stuff (which we think is wonderful) --> maybe if we fit them out with the same stuff, they'll get wonderful.

Of course, that assumption fails catastrophically in two obvious ways (it fails in lots of ways, but I'll focus on these two):

1) When the assumption that "ours" = "wonderful" allows substandard goods/services to be produced, promoted and used as if they were wonderful just because they are ours. Examples: US public education and US health care.

2) When the assumption that "ours" = "good"/"theirs" = "icky" leads to cultural imperialism and the high-handed dismissal and even destruction of other people's social and cultural identity as being inferior. That is the kind of thing that causes violence.

Well good. You've gotten over your assumption. I would only hope that others would spend a bit of time to do the same before spouting off about conditions in a world they have arbitrarily labelled 'third world'.

I suggest starting a thread on the topic. I would but I'm sneaking enough time away from class as is.

Not really my assumption. I haven't created a new system of categorization, but I am well aware that Chile is far from a 'third world hellhole'. You assumed the contrary, and have changed your mind somewhat. Others just assume and leave it at that.


I only made that assumption because you said so, I don't know much about the economy of Chile, only the culture I know a trivial amount on. I thought it was weird to class Chile as third world right from the beginning, but I just went a long with it mainly for the sake of argument.


Well no shit. HOW it is funded is of incredible importance however. If the Canadian government, overnight, decided to step out of education and convert it to a purely private system, suddenly education would become less accessible. It would still be funded, albeit directly by those attending school (or their parents or their banks offering loans etc.) Just because GDP is low, doesn't mean you can compare countries will similar low GDPs and know anything about their education system.


I still don't see the importance here. Either the schools are less accessible or less well funded.


Point is, lack of money does not automatically mean shitty educational system. You can run a fairly modest system with high standards....it just takes some know-how.

You don't need tonnes, but probably more then what a third world country can afford, but then that depends on what you count as modest.


Visa versa, tonnes of money and shiny technology do not guarantee you're turning out well educated students.


But well trained teachers will.


That does not in fact appear to be the case. No, these students don't have fancy equipment, or state-of-the-art facilities. And for your point about teacher salaries...well they aren't taking in what a Canadian teacher would, that's pretty obvious.


But then there's the problem with people with good degrees emigrating to teach due to earning more money, with not enough well trained teachers staying in the country.


Chile could be making money hand over fist and that WILL NOT GUARANTEE EDUCATIONAL FUNDING. Shit, just look at Canada, where we've slashed educational funding...particularly in Alberta, where we are literally the economic powerhouse of the nation. Our infrastructure is crumbling, teachers are leaving the profession in an average of 5 years, and private fundraising has become a standard need to provide basic materials to students in many schools.

Well of course the way the government handles the budget is another factor, but if there is barely any money in the budget in the first place....


Chile is significantly poorer than Canada, but it allocates its funding differently, and focuses on education. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere...but even Cuba manages to afford a very good educational system despite its poverty. I'm not sure why you are still saying that poor country must = poorly funded education system. Not funded to OUR standards perhaps, but functionally funded in many cases, and functional beyond many assumptions.

But again I wouldn't class Cuba as third world either. It's not just education, but every state service being poorly funded that is the worry here.


Well that's very nice you don't think the Philippines is a third world country. Did you think that before or is this another assumption you've challenged?


If you asked me to class it, I wouldn't have classed it third world. Though it's certainly not a well developed nation either.


Nor am I accusing you of holding onto an attitude of superiority...it was a question I actually want you to consider in terms of those who actively DO cling to these notions. You at least have been willing to look into things a bit more which sort of negates the whole 'you're working from assumptions' part of the OP. Good, thank you. It's the entire point here. I just want people to actually THINK before they claim superiority.

I'm not saying 'better', I'm saying 'best'. When you think you're the best, what could you possibly improve on? And when you think something is inferior, why on earth would you look to it for ideas?


Well, I just think that maybe you're over-exagerating the number of people who think this. Certainly there are a few, but I think the bulk of the people you are referring to may actually be saying that the western style of free market liberal governments are the best systems of government we have produced SO FAR, not that they can't be improved. I would be one of them.


Look at alternative power sources and 'green low tech', for example. Villages in Bolivia have for years been capturing moisture from the mist in the mountains...they were previously dangerously low on potable water. In these isolated villages, telephone and power won't get to them for years yet, and the expense will be incredible. So using fairly low tech solar power (included solar ovens and solar panels) these villages have managed to provided themselves with sustainable power. Bolivia has also launched a biofuel program (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/12/bolivia-investing-in-biofuels-but-with-a-special-twist/).

For sure, they'd probably prefer the convenience of petroleum fuelled power...but they don't have the luxury. We continue to be gluttons because we can, and because our technology is 'the best'. Luckily more and more people are starting to realise that we can learn a lot from people living in poverty...because they come up with innovative solutions at low costs. We need that kind of innovative spirit back...and that will only come when we change our attitudes from 'it's the best, why change it' to dissatisfaction. Part of that is getting over the idea that 'third world hellholes' (of which I'm sorry, but Bolivia truly can be classified as) are inferior and have nothing to teach us.


I have a problem with this, firstly I think that the amount of energy produced proportional to the amount solar power costs is actually not worth it. I also think that instead mining and using the fuels present in many African countries for example would also benefit from it being overall cheaper, with also a massive improvement to the economy (foreign investment, more jobs, enhancing technology etc...). But that's another issue.


Well get over it. What kind of definition is that? On what are you basing this 'inferiority'? Before, you were basing it on assumed rates of funding. Once you saw that somehow the Chileans are managing to fund education, they suddenly stopped being third world in your mind.


At its simplest, to me a third world country is a country where the majority of people are at or below the poverty line. This is probably an inaccurate definition though. This will mean that the government is inherently under funded (unless it receives a huge amount of loans and investment) to provide adequate services to the whole population.


You can have an inferior system that is extremely well funded. Good funding doesn't guarantee efficiency or quality. If you start classifying third world countries as 'only those with INFERIOR' systems, then I'll expect you to start explaining the criteria on which you are basing your conclusions. I'll also expect you to classify certain systems in the first world as 'inferior' if that classification in any way involves inefficiency and lack of quality. Then your whole classification system will be shot to shit.


Actually, it's basically nonexistent these days to actually have an extremely well funded system that is managed so bad that it doesn't offer an adequate service to the majority of the people, despite what some mainstream media might claim. Yes bad management is an issue, but as I said earlier if you have barely any money in the budget to begin with, financial expertise will only get you so far. If the services are adequate, then almost by definition the country is probably not in a third world state.


Well part of getting people to see that there even IS a need for a different classification system is getting them to first think that hey, maybe that classification system just doesn't work because of 'x' 'y' or 'z'. Part of that is the assumption of superior to inferior that most often informs the definitions of first world and third world. And the entire point of this thread has been to say...third world != inferior, and first world !=superior.

Not everyone agrees.

I think the main problem is that third world and first world is far too black and white, far too broad terms which have little meaning.

I still don't see the importance here. Either the schools are less accessible or less well funded.
I'm not sure how you are not understanding this. Rich country. Canada. Lots of money. Spending 'x' amount on schools. The schools could be shit, or they could be good. The amount of money alone is not the determining factor. Say the funding goes entirely to infrastructure and technology and not to teacher training. Great facilities, great computers, shitty education. Or say there is a huge user fee. Assume great education, very hard to access. There are many different ways the system could be funded, and more funding is not going to automatically mean better education.

Chile will have less money to fund schools. That does not mean the schools will automatically be worse than in Canada in terms of quality of education. If Canada spends its money in stupid ways, it can still end up with a well-funded, shitty system. Capiche?


But then there's the problem with people with good degrees emigrating to teach due to earning more money, with not enough well trained teachers staying in the country. Teachers, alas, are a category of professionals that simply do not get to emigrate much. For one, in no country are they particularly well paid, not even in the first world. For another, teacher training is curriculum specific in most cases, and there is no imperative as with engineering to set up a system of accreditation to ease their transfer into a new country. Teachers are not in fact leaving in any great amounts to teach elsewhere.



Well of course the way the government handles the budget is another factor, but if there is barely any money in the budget in the first place.... Then it takes more skill to stretch things. When you are working at improving the economic situation in your country you damn well find that skill. When you think your system is the best as is, the need for that skill drops.



But again I wouldn't class Cuba as third world either. It's not just education, but every state service being poorly funded that is the worry here. Okay this is starting to annoy me. Go forth, start a thread, and finally and definitively state what you believe 'third world to be' with examples please.

Nor do I think I'm over-exaggerating. It's sad, but the majority of people you'll interact with on a day to day basis are not particularly sophisticated or critical minded. Most will not in fact say 'well I don't think Chile is a third world country because I define third world as blah blah blah'. They will gladly proclaim their food, their goods, their systems and so forth to be better than those in Chile (or elsewhere) with absolutely no information to base that on. It's been demonstrated even in this thread. If you challenge them, perhaps they'll stop, and think about it...but the first reaction is generally 'we are the best'. It is an attitude that is encouraged from infancy on. I'm glad you don't share it, but I'm sorry, I don't think you are a good representative for people in my country or yours.

I'm not sure how you are not understanding this. Rich country. Canada. Lots of money. Spending 'x' amount on schools. The schools could be shit, or they could be good. The amount of money alone is not the determining factor. Say the funding goes entirely to infrastructure and technology and not to teacher training. Great facilities, great computers, shitty education. Or say there is a huge user fee. Assume great education, very hard to access. There are many different ways the system could be funded, and more funding is not going to automatically mean better education.


I understand that, that wasn't what I was refering to though. Nevermind. However addressing this, I have explained how I think that it's basically non existent these days to have management so bad that an extremely well funded service becomes third world. I also believe that good management can only go so far with an underfunded system.


Chile will have less money to fund schools. That does not mean the schools will automatically be worse than in Canada in terms of quality of education. If Canada spends its money in stupid ways, it can still end up with a well-funded, shitty system. Capiche?


But it makes it much more likely, since the likelyhood of having an education so badly managed is tiny.


Teachers, alas, are a category of professionals that simply do not get to emigrate much. For one, in no country are they particularly well paid, not even in the first world. For another, teacher training is curriculum specific in most cases, and there is no imperative as with engineering to set up a system of accreditation to ease their transfer into a new country. Teachers are not in fact leaving in any great amounts to teach elsewhere.


Well yes people with good degrees don't usually emigrate abroard just to teach, but for other jobs, but they emmigrate nevertheless. Although primary schools won't suffer from this much, upper education will.


Then it takes more skill to stretch things. When you are working at improving the economic situation in your country you damn well find that skill. When you think your system is the best as is, the need for that skill drops.


I just don't think any amount of skill can make an underfunded education system at the very least as good as western systems.


Okay this is starting to annoy me. Go forth, start a thread, and finally and definitively state what you believe 'third world to be' with examples please.


I can't be bothered. :p I might later I don't know.


Nor do I think I'm over-exaggerating. It's sad, but the majority of people you'll interact with on a day to day basis are not particularly sophisticated or critical minded. Most will not in fact say 'well I don't think Chile is a third world country because I define third world as blah blah blah'. They will gladly proclaim their food, their goods, their systems and so forth to be better than those in Chile (or elsewhere) with absolutely no information to base that on. It's been demonstrated even in this thread. If you challenge them, perhaps they'll stop, and think about it...but the first reaction is generally 'we are the best'. It is an attitude that is encouraged from infancy on. I'm glad you don't share it, but I'm sorry, I don't think you are a good representative for people in my country or yours.

Ok well I won't be able to disprove this so I'll just accept it.

*Your last post directed at me*
Terribly sorry that I did exactly what you said and compared the curriculum, literacy rates and specialisations for you.

Whoops, eh?

And please, for the love of God, could you not try to tell me what I know, or think, or believe and what I don't. You're as guilty, if not more so, of being arrogant and presumptuous and I am.

But if you are talking about QUALITY of education, you can not simply assume that a poor country has poor education. Agreed?
That's my whole point -- YES I can! Until there is some evidence to the contrary, I can make any assumption I want. Based on my experience with "engineers" in third world countries, I will ALWAYS assume that an engineer with a degree from a major research university in the United States is capable of more independent and more difficult work than his third world counterpart.

I say this because of years of experience. I used to incorrectly assume that an "engineer" from Russia was as good as an engineer from Georgia Tech. I found out that many engineers from Russia are very good technicians, but not GIT quality. It's because of how the education system labels them. I used to assume that an "engineer" educated and residing in India was as good as an engineer from MIT. Wrong again. Most of those engineers are good technicians and can solve very well defined problems, but they cannot solve open-ended problems that have many potential solutions without lots of guidance.

When I go to Norway or Sweden, I know I can count on the local engineering staff to be knowledgeable and helpful.

So what's my best bet when planning for a trip? Should I depend on Pakistan or on Nigeria to provide the kind of support I need? Or should I plan for the worst? Considering that naivety {or in the case of GoG -- idealism} usually costs more than pessimism and prudence, I'm going to be pessimistic and prudent. If I find that the support I need is available, I'll remember that and make sure to take advantage of it next time.

Moral?

There's the idealistic world, where we all are equal until proven otherwise and even then we can make an excuse or two for the 'perceived' inequalities. Unfortunately, we keep making the same mistakes over and over because we refuse to make assumptions about anything.

And there's the practical world where profits and jobs depend on doing things right the first time. Here in Practical Land, we are pessimistic, make assumptions, and revise those assumptions when we can.

And one more thing? What's the downside of assuming things are better in developed nations?

Yootopia brought up the specific universities as though to prove his belief that the education in Chile is OBVIOUSLY worse than it is in Canada.
Not really, I brought them up because you asked me to compare two univesities. So I did.
I have provided links that point out that the length of schooling and average time actually spent in school is fairly equal in both Chile and Canada. I have provided curricular links, which I'm sorry, I'm not about to chart out for you. The goals set in the state mandated mathematics curriculum, for example, is similar in all levels in both countries. Chile has a population roughly half that of Canada, the majority of people living in the capital of Santiago. There are numerous post-secondary institutions in Chile.
Cheers for that.
Let's look at some more information:55% (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1520) of children (of applicable ages) in Chile are enrolled in a pre-primary school compared to about 65% (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=1240) in Canada. Primary education? 90% in Chile compared to 99% in Canada. Secondary education? 55% compared to Canada's 89%. (although remember, mandatory education in Chile has been increased to 12 years, which will likely impact future enrollment rates). Now, tertiary enrollment, which is what we've been focusing on...in Chile, 48% (males and females roughly equal) compared to Canada's 51% for males, 70% for females.

You stated early that 'hardly anyone in Chile can afford to go to University.

Nearly 50% of those eligible to go to University do, and that's 'hardly any'?

Also, consider that vocational training is offered in the secondary level for Chileans, meaning you can specialise in a trade in secondary school, or you can focus on getting into tertiary education. The lower enrollment in Canada of males to females in tertiary institutions is for similar reasons.

But you wouldn't know that had I not brought this to your attention. Yootopia didn't know this. Instead of admitting it, however, Yootopia felt secure in the belief that 'Chile is a third world country, therefore Canadian education is ahead of it by....' what was his term? "Fucking miles"?
Please don't seek to tell me what I know.
False. False and arrogant. Canadian percentages are consistently ahead of Chilean ones, but not nearly by the margin suggested by Yootopia, or by those who like to look at 'everyone but as' as 'third world'.
Wait a tick.

You're saying that Canada, which has an enrollment rate into secondary education of 89%, which is more than half again as much as Chile's total of 55% isn't getting far more people into institutions?

Nor indeed that about 45ish% more females, per capita, enrolling into tertiary education isn't better?

Oh please.

That's my whole point -- YES I can! Until there is some evidence to the contrary, I can make any assumption I want. Based on my experience with "engineers" in third world countries, I will ALWAYS assume that an engineer with a degree from a major research university in the United States is capable of more independent and more difficult work than his third world counterpart.

Then I guess you're ignorant. Plain old fashioned dumb. If you continue to make assumptions on people's intelligence based on where they were born or lived, then you are being ignorant, perhaps even racist. The fact that you can think this is a good thing shows that you are willfully ignorant.

I say this because of years of experience. I used to incorrectly assume that an "engineer" from Russia was as good as an engineer from Georgia Tech. I found out that many engineers from Russia are very good technicians, but not GIT quality. It's because of how the education system labels them. I used to assume that an "engineer" educated and residing in India was as good as an engineer from MIT. Wrong again. Most of those engineers are good technicians and can solve very well defined problems, but they cannot solve open-ended problems that have many potential solutions without lots of guidance.

You seem to have this odd notion that you are the only person who posts on NSG that has any real world experience. I have also worked with engineers from all over the world and I find that they all have problems with open-ended problems. I think it has more to do with physic's use of absolute laws than it has to do with people's ethnicity. But I didn't make that assumption until after I had these experiences, and I'm not sure it's true, as there are exceptions like Luis Barragan.

When I go to Norway or Sweden, I know I can count on the local engineering staff to be knowledgeable and helpful.

And here is the flip side. Tell me, do you also assume that all white folk are clean and articulate?

So what's my best bet when planning for a trip? Should I depend on Pakistan or on Nigeria to provide the kind of support I need? Or should I plan for the worst? Considering that naivety {or in the case of GoG -- idealism} usually costs more than pessimism and prudence, I'm going to be pessimistic and prudent. If I find that the support I need is available, I'll remember that and make sure to take advantage of it next time.

Making assumptions is not practical. Ask any project manager. They never just assume that the delivery made it on time. They call and follow up. Even if the delivery guy is from the first world. Pessimism and prudence are as useful in the developed world as they are in the developing world.

Moral?

There's the idealistic world, where we all are equal until proven otherwise and even then we can make an excuse or two for the 'perceived' inequalities. Unfortunately, we keep making the same mistakes over and over because we refuse to make assumptions about anything.

My beliefs aren't based on idealism. I have come to the opinion that people from developing nations are as smart and productive as members of the developed world, because that is the theory that best describes my observations.

Your assumptions, and your beliefs about them, are far more idealistic. It would be ideal if we didn't have to think about individual situations. It would be ideal if all the things we thought about the world were true. But they're not. Reality always sides with the person who doesn't make assumptions.

And there's the practical world where profits and jobs depend on doing things right the first time. Here in Practical Land, we are pessimistic, make assumptions, and revise those assumptions when we can.

Oh, brother. When you're building a wall, do you assume the wood is straight because it came from a lumber yard owned by a European, while you check all the Latino wood more carefully? No, you don't. You check all your wood. How practical to not have assumptions, wouldn't you say? Here in the real Practical land, we are pessimistic, never make assumptions, and revise our plans when we need to.

And one more thing? What's the downside of assuming things are better in developed nations?

Here's a big hint: it's written right in the OP. If you're still unable to find it, read Murayvet's posts. She discusses your exact question quite well.

Terribly sorry that I did exactly what you said and compared the curriculum, literacy rates and specialisations for you. You did no such thing. You provided no links to literacy rates, nor did you provide any links to curriculum. You just looked up how many specialisations were provided at two specific Universities and drew baseless conclusions from that. You saw that the Univsersity in BC had more specialisations and you assumed somehow from that paucity of information that the education in BC was OBVIOUSLY better.

If you tried that shit in an academic paper, you know what you'd be told?

You fail.

Wait a tick.

You're saying that Canada, which has an enrollment rate into secondary education of 89%, which is more than half again as much as Chile's total of 55% isn't getting far more people into institutions?

Nor indeed that about 45ish% more females, per capita, enrolling into tertiary education isn't better?

Oh please.

Post-secondary (or tertiary). Don't get it mixed up.

From pre-primary, through primary and into secondary, the rates of enrollment in Chile are very close to rates of enrollment in Canada. That means that the bulk of Chileans and Canadians have had at a minimum, 12 - 14 years of schooling.

You are only NOW focusing entirely on tertiary education. Your statements before encompassed education as a whole. Your claim, at that time, was that Canadian schooling was MILES ahead of what you'd find in say, Chile.

The fact that less secondary-level graduates in Chile go on to tertiary education does not in fact support your supposition that the quality of education system itself is miles behind what we have in Canada. In fact, I have pointed out how specific graduates from tertiary institutions in Chile are found to be equal to their counterparts in Canada. Other factors are involved in the difference between the raw numbers going into tertiary levels in Chile compared to Canada, most of which are certainly economic (Chile has a similar system of government/private funding for tertiary institutions as Canada). Were Chile to turn around and provide free tertiary schooling, you can bet the numbers would be different...were Canada to suddenly completely stop subsidising tertiary education, you would also see a change. Neither change would give you the information you need to judge the quality of the education being offered in either country.

You claiming NOW that you were ACTUALLY talking about the number of people going into tertiary institutions is laughable.

You provided no links to literacy rates
I did, actually, earlier in the topic.
nor did you provide any links to curriculum.
Sorry, I had no joy there. Why not use your obviously incredible intellect to find it out, eh?
You just looked up how many specialisations were provided at two specific Universities and drew baseless conclusions from that. You saw that the Univsersity in BC had more specialisations and you assumed somehow from that paucity of information that the education in BC was OBVIOUSLY better.
No, I didn't really draw any conclusions. I just pointed out that there were more subjects going on at BC...

"OK, fine.

Universidad de Santiago de Chile -

Engineering Department has 9 different areas, with exactly 20 precise specifications all in all.

http://www.usach.cl/en/index2.php?id...ching&pag=9382

The University of British Columbia has 11 general areas of study in the Engineering section, with a whole ton of more precise areas.

http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/"

That's what I said. No debate there.

No, I didn't really draw any conclusions. I just pointed out that there were more subjects going on at BC...

"OK, fine.

Universidad de Santiago de Chile -

Engineering Department has 9 different areas, with exactly 20 precise specifications all in all.

http://www.usach.cl/en/index2.php?id...ching&pag=9382

The University of British Columbia has 11 general areas of study in the Engineering section, with a whole ton of more precise areas.

http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/"

That's what I said. No debate there.Oh I see, so you simply presented information, drew no conclusions, and do not believe that the quality of education in BC is necessarily better than in the metropolitan district of Santiago?

Nice to know. Glad we have that sorted out.

Post-secondary (or tertiary). Don't get it mixed up.
"Secondary education? 55% compared to Canada's 89%. (although remember, mandatory education in Chile has been increased to 12 years, which will likely impact future enrollment rates). "

Sorry, who mixed that one up?
From pre-primary, through primary and into secondary, the rates of enrollment in Chile are very close to rates of enrollment in Canada. That means that the bulk of Chileans and Canadians have had at a minimum, 12 - 14 years of schooling.
55% of Chileans will have at least 12 to 14 years' shooling. That's only just 'the bulk'.
You are only NOW focusing entirely on tertiary education. Your statements before encompassed education as a whole. Your claim, at that time, was that Canadian schooling was MILES ahead of what you'd find in say, Chile.
Err... no I'm not... I was talking about secondary education, too, in which Canada is doing much better than Chile at the moment...
The fact that less secondary-level graduates in Chile go on to tertiary education does not in fact support your supposition that the quality of education system itself is miles behind what we have in Canada. In fact, I have pointed out how specific graduates from tertiary institutions in Chile are found to be equal to their counterparts in Canada. Other factors are involved in the difference between the raw numbers going into tertiary levels in Chile compared to Canada, most of which are certainly economic (Chile has a similar system of government/private funding for tertiary institutions as Canada). Were Chile to turn around and provide free tertiary schooling, you can bet the numbers would be different...were Canada to suddenly completely stop subsidising tertiary education, you would also see a change. Neither change would give you the information you need to judge the quality of the education being offered in either country.
Je m'en fiche, that's not how it is now. Can we stick to non-hypothetical situation, please?
You claiming NOW that you were ACTUALLY talking about the number of people going into tertiary institutions is laughable.
... where did I claim that?



Incidentally, can we move off from Chile, which is actually pretty rich for a 'third world' country, and indeed has a very respectable education system for the level of wealth in that country?

Oh I see, so you simply presented information, drew no conclusions, and do not believe that the quality of education in BC is necessarily better than in the metropolitan district of Santiago?

Nice to know. Glad we have that sorted out.
Well yes. Without going to those universities, and talking to every single student, and looking at rates, and types of employment, etc. etc. etc. it's actually quite difficult to make any kind of proper judgement.

That there is a more diverse range on offer in the Canadian University is true. It'd be an assumption to say anything much more on the matter, especially since the Chilean university doesn't give any post-graduation employment statistics, and nor indeed does UBC.

"Secondary education? 55% compared to Canada's 89%. (although remember, mandatory education in Chile has been increased to 12 years, which will likely impact future enrollment rates). "

Sorry, who mixed that one up? Ah! You're right! Sorry.

55% of Chileans will have at least 12 to 14 years' shooling. That's only just 'the bulk'. Except now, 12 years is mandatory. I think it's reasonable to assume that 55% will be closer to Canada's 89%.

Err... no I'm not... I was talking about secondary education, too, in which Canada is doing much better than Chile at the moment... I did mention the stats are outdated, and don't reflect the new mandatory requirements.

Je m'en fiche, that's not how it is now. Can we stick to non-hypothetical situation, please? The hypothetical situation is completely valid in that it points out that differing rates of tertiary enrollment do not speak to the quality of education provided.

... where did I claim that? My bad, that was my mix up in the secondary/post-secondary.


Incidentally, can we move off from Chile, which is actually pretty rich for a 'third world' country, and indeed has a very respectable education system for the level of wealth in that country?Since you've been able to admit the above, yes, we can get off Chile.

All I wanted you to do, Yootopia...is start with your basic assumption "Miles behind the education system in Canda", look at it, find out if that is true, and then either reaffirm the assumption or reject it.

Ah! You're right! Sorry.
No problem.
Except now, 12 years is mandatory. I think it's reasonable to assume that 55% will be closer to Canada's 89%.
It's actually very close indeed nowadays, with 87.7% of those eligable managing to go there.
The hypothetical situation is completely valid in that it points out that differing rates of tertiary enrollment do not speak to the quality of education provided.
I'm personally more inclined to imagine that an education system with a high enrollment rate is a pretty high-quality system. Unless you're living in some kind of feudal society where only the middle and upper classes learn, then a country with a low intake is probably going to have a low-quality system - to be honest, any country with a low intake is one with a low-quality system in my eyes, but that's a different topic.
Since you've been able to admit the above, yes, we can get off Chile.
Please don't now say "Cuba" or something :p
All I wanted you to do, Yootopia...is start with your basic assumption "Miles behind the education system in Canda", look at it, find out if that is true, and then either reaffirm the assumption or reject it.
Chile is an extremely special case, in that it has mandatory, free education for12 years for its children. In the third world, that's extremely rare - hell, even in Germany, you need only be at school for 8 or 9 years if you end up in a Hauptschule.

Well yes. Without going to those universities, and talking to every single student, and looking at rates, and types of employment, etc. etc. etc. it's actually quite difficult to make any kind of proper judgement. Not really...instead you can look at the curriculum offered and compare them. You don't need to talk to each student. You can look at what is actually taught, consider whether there is a curve, and take that into account.

That there is a more diverse range on offer in the Canadian University is true. It'd be an assumption to say anything much more on the matter, especially since the Chilean university doesn't give any post-graduation employment statistics, and nor indeed does UBC.
Employment won't necessarily tell us what we need to know either. If there is a lack of employment opportunities in either area, that isn't going to be directly related to quality of training...it could be simple supply and demand.

Not really...instead you can look at the curriculum offered and compare them. You don't need to talk to each student. You can look at what is actually taught, consider whether there is a curve, and take that into account.
The problem is finding a curriculum for either of those courses, or indeed extracting any kind of information outside of "this is the homepage for this bit of the university".
Employment won't necessarily tell us what we need to know either. If there is a lack of employment opportunities in either area, that isn't going to be directly related to quality of training...it could be simple supply and demand.
Uni grads, especially engineers, are always in high demand, and it doesn't really matter where you're from if you're an engineer, companies like Arup will snap you up.

The problem is finding a curriculum for either of those courses, or indeed extracting any kind of information outside of "this is the homepage for this bit of the university".

Uni grads, especially engineers, are always in high demand, and it doesn't really matter where you're from if you're an engineer, companies like Arup will snap you up.

Ha well, when most uni grads in Chile come out of engineering...sometimes the demand is overseas...also...BA grads here are not particularily marketable.

But true overall.

Please don't now say "Cuba" or something :p Na, I'm almost out of time for the day unless I skip my next class *considers....*

Chile is an extremely special case, in that it has mandatory, free education for12 years for its children. In the third world, that's extremely rare - hell, even in Germany, you need only be at school for 8 or 9 years if you end up in a Hauptschule.

I'll look into this actually...I'd like to know for my own benefit, so I'll look at the IBE UNESCO site again and post what I find.

Hmmm, couldn't find info on mandatory schooling rates, so I'm just going by enrollment.

I’m going to compare a sampling of really poor countries to France, since I couldn’t get info on Germany:

France (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=2500)
99% primary (how did they get 117% in pre-primary?)
99% secondary
56% tertiary
11% gov’t spending to education
99% literacy

Wow, go France! I want to compare that first to the US, for kicks:

US (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=8400)
92% primary
89% secondary
82% tertiary
14.4% gov’t spending on education
99% literacy

Wait…82% in tertiary in the US? Does that seem right to you? What is classified as tertiary education in the US…do they include vocational colleges? Weird.


Botswana (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=720)

86% enrollment in primary school
64% girls, 58% boys in secondary school
5% in tertiary
21.5% of government spending goes to education
94% literacy rate

Mozambique (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=5080)
73% girls, 80% boys in primary school
7% secondary
1% tertiary
19.5% government spending goes to education
47% literacy rate

Bangladesh (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=500)
85% in primary
45% secondary
6% tertiary
14.2% gov’t spending goes to education
64% literacy

Malaysia (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=4580)
95% primary
65% secondary
31% female, 25% male tertiary
25.2% gov’t spending to education
97% literacy

Guatemala (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=3200)
94% primary
36% secondary
11% tertiary
13% gov’t spending to education
82% literacy

I wanted to look at Turkey because some people might suggest that Turkey isn't necessarily third world, perhaps teetering on the edge, although not first world.
Turkey (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=7920)
88% girls, 92% boys primary
61% girls, 71% boys secondary
31% tertiary
no info on % of gov’t spending
95% literacy

US (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=8400)
92% primary
89% secondary
82% tertiary
14.4% gov’t spending on education
99% literacy

Wait…82% in tertiary in the US? Does that seem right to you? What is classified as tertiary education in the US…do they include vocational colleges? Weird.


I'm gonna bet that the number of tertiary students includes all students in post-secondary education. That means all those third-worlders that assumed they could be better educated in the United States came here and matriculated. Who knows what base number the UN decided to use for computing the percentages -- all I know is that there are a lot of foreign students in our better schools.

I'm gonna bet that the number of tertiary students includes all students in post-secondary education. That means all those third-worlders that assumed they could be better educated in the United States came here and matriculated. Who knows what base number the UN decided to use for computing the percentages -- all I know is that there are a lot of foreign students in our better schools.

Right. So with the first bolded bit, we see how Myrmy automatically goes for the assumption. Please note that he does not try to support it.

The second bolded bit shows how his argument rests on this assumption.

The thrid bolded bit was added for irony's sake, as Myrmy dismisses UN numbers because he assumes that they assumed.

The fourth bolded bit actually presents what might be considered the first fact.

So that, boys and girls, is why you should check your assumptions. It keeps you from looking like someone who pulls arguments out of their ass.