West Virginia broke away from Virginia in 1863 over the Civil War and slavery--the mostly mountainous counties in WV had no use for a slave economy and wanted to remain part of the Union.
The biggest geographical contrast in Virginia is between Northern Virginia (the DC suburbs) and the rest of the state. Though politically this area is similar to Richmond and the Virginia Beach area.
Remember, a pretty decent percentage of Kansas' population is in Wichita or the Kansas City metro- both areas with pretty high education levels. In Nebraska, a little over a third of the population is in the Omaha metro area, and a decent chunk is also in the Lincoln area. While both of these states are very rural in terms of space, the people are highly concentrated. Alaska (where the overwhelming majority of people are in the Anchorage area), Idaho (where most people are in the Boise area), and Nevada (literally 2/3's of the state is in the county with Las Vegas) are in a similar boat.
Farming is really scientific these days and many farmers go to ag schools. A lot of the universities with "state" in their name have significant agriculture programs (eg, Ohio State, Iowa State, Washington State).
Areas with high paying jobs (think SF, DC, NYC) attract educated workers. They also have a high cost of living. This requires them to spend more on education to provide the same basic services since teachers earn more, building maintenance is more expensive, etc...
Here in Seattle, teachers make a lot of money in absolute terms, but still struggle to afford to live here.
The state with the lowest spending per pupil is Utah. Chicago schools spend three times as much per student as Utah. Where would you rather send your kids?
Going international, Singapore has a very low cost per student and has educational outcomes that put the U.S. to shame.
I don't have numbers handy, but I would guess most private schools spend much less per student, given that most private schools in the US are religious.
I think it says something about the gentrification of college campuses that my home state of Indiana is internationally very well-known for its colleges (IU, Purdue, Notre Dame, etc.), yet relatively few of those degrees actually go to Hoosiers. Either that, or in-state students move away once they get a degree, which in that case I wouldn't blame them, LOL.
PeregrineFalcon is right. For exemple, Switzerland has an education system that offers a very good education without going to college. We have only 34.6% of college graduates (like Montana). It doesn't mean that Switzerland is uneducated, it is an other system.
True. But it's just as epistemically weak/suspect to believe that simply by refuting causation all correlation should be written off as information bias that lacks probative value.
FYI, I deleted a lot of low-information political comments from this comments section. I'll continue to do so. JetPunk is not a political discussion forum.
If you must post about politics, increase your level of charity and effort.
Haha I'm just now seeing this but I'm probably part of that problem...or at least responding to it. Fair enough that my comments were deleted along with the parent ones.
The numbers have crept up a bit since the last iteration of this quiz. Personally, I'm not of the opinion that college education is an unalloyed good. If current trends continue, nearly everyone will have a college degree, yet the average person will be just as ignorant. Standards are already shockingly low, even at top universities. And of course the cost is ludicrous.
^ I agree. My four years of University in the US taught me nothing (save a more in depth study of American History, and American pronunciations) that I hadn't already learned at the equivalent of a US Junior College in the Netherlands. What a shame! In our parents' generation a high school education in the US was the equivalent of a college degree. It allowed them to function at a higher level than bachelor degree holders today. That's why so many of us have to opt for post-graduate degrees... to actually learn something useful.
There's a certain point where I think there's no way to make the majority of the population more skilled/knowledgeable, no matter how much you change the education system. Most people only have a certain capacity to remember old facts while learning new ones. I'm not necessarily saying this as an insult, it's just that the human brain can't retain that much information over a long time.
That being said, if we focused more on teaching valuable, important things in a child's formative years, they'll be more likely to remember it. I think that reforming the education system in primary school to high school would have a more significant impact in reducing ignorance levels than reforming it in college.
I'm skeptical to believe that your average college-educated American is just as ignorant as your average non-college-educated American… or that admitting more people costs the quality of education... or that college simply admits people and doesn't actually contribute to people getting any smarter. (I believe it must be a logical conclusion from your argument here that one of these is true.) That's not to say I'm sure these are all wrong, but I wonder if you have a source for... whichever of these you believe (assuming you believe any).
That said, I agree that college education is not an unalloyed good. I think more people go for it than really need to, and I think it's really bad for the job market that incurring so much debt has become a requirement for so many positions that college education makes no difference for (well, a requirement for those in the demographic of "too rich to get enough financial aid, but too poor to pay out of pocket unless your family sells the house").
Not having a college degree does not mean you are uneducated. Most people who do tough work like mining, building a house or maintenance do not have a college degree. Not because they are not smart enough but because money and I bet most college kids could not screw a wheel on a car.
So the first 12 years of school don't count at all as education? If you graduate high school, of course you are educated...there are different levels of education, and different ways to educate oneself. You don't have to have a four year degree from a traditional university to call yourself educated. Of course you are right that educated and intelligent are not the same thing.
If I learn things on my own volition after high school is that not education? Do I have to pay someone to tell me to read the book, or can I just read the book?
Living in a midwest state and previously living in metropolitans, I know that this way of comparing education is severely flawed. Most jobs in the midwest/south are manufacturing and agriculture, to which almost none get a bachelor's degree. Most jobs are trade-oriented, meaning that at most you would go and seek an associate's degree, go to a trade school, or get taught on the job. Furthermore, the majority of rural associate's degrees require very few general education credits. IE: Why would a farmer need to know Beer's law? You can make an association that the more rural the state, the more specialized their education is. A much better metric for calculating education would be to compare higher-education capacity, availability, and trade certificates per population. Education has nothing to do with race, politics, or intelligence, but with everything aforementioned.
Years ago, my brother worked at Ciba-Geigy, which became Novartis. He worked in a department of about 12 people and was the only one there without a college degree. When his boss was away, he was the only one in the group who could run the department. Several of them couldn't even be trusted to simply file things alphabetically. By this quiz's standard, they were all "more educated" and my brother was the "least educated".
You can see the lasting ramifications of the Civil War and reconstruction in poverty and education statistics, much like the shadows of East Germany still appear in almost any data map of the country. It's rhetorically easy to make this a political thing because the deep south is so deep red, but the plains states do generally well in education which points to a more complicated answer.
Many of these states are pretty well off economically. Indiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Nevada, sure they have quite a bit of poverty but are also growing rapidly. Higher education is not the only factor in whether a region is performing well.
Should note that higher education is not education as a whole. Mississippi boasts a K-8 math and reading score higher than California and New York, and its minority students are by far some of the best educated compared to minority students on a national level. But of course, they're going to get shit on for not having a high college degree rate despite having a solid university system and the fact that most of its economy isn't white collar.
Conservative + educated. Think prairie home companion and you're close.
Areas with high paying jobs (think SF, DC, NYC) attract educated workers. They also have a high cost of living. This requires them to spend more on education to provide the same basic services since teachers earn more, building maintenance is more expensive, etc...
Here in Seattle, teachers make a lot of money in absolute terms, but still struggle to afford to live here.
The state with the lowest spending per pupil is Utah. Chicago schools spend three times as much per student as Utah. Where would you rather send your kids?
Going international, Singapore has a very low cost per student and has educational outcomes that put the U.S. to shame.
Spending is largely irrelevant.
If you must post about politics, increase your level of charity and effort.
That being said, if we focused more on teaching valuable, important things in a child's formative years, they'll be more likely to remember it. I think that reforming the education system in primary school to high school would have a more significant impact in reducing ignorance levels than reforming it in college.
That said, I agree that college education is not an unalloyed good. I think more people go for it than really need to, and I think it's really bad for the job market that incurring so much debt has become a requirement for so many positions that college education makes no difference for (well, a requirement for those in the demographic of "too rich to get enough financial aid, but too poor to pay out of pocket unless your family sells the house").
Hawaii?
See what happens when we generalize?