0%

I found myself wandering around the internet when I stumbled upon a fairly interesting article.

According to this article the average score that today's top science students would have gotten on tests administered in 1965 is 0%. Now before you go crazy and start lobbying your local political leaders to have me shot for heresy or something equally ridiculous, lets take a look at a couple things.

First of all, based solely on this article the logical conclusion would be that our school systems are in serious trouble. Epic Fail to quote the internet. What kind of shape are our children in if they can't pass the tests their grandparents were? The article states that the farther back you went, the lower the average score was.

However, just a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all, if you'll notice, this is a UK publication. Therefore, as much as the internet makes us into a global community, its extremely important to remember that not only can situations vary culturally from country to country, but so can educational standards and procedures. This would lead us to question how similar the situation is. Would America's top students test similarly? Would they be taking the same tests, or the UK's American counterparts? How would that affect the scored results?

Additionally, one must question the reputation of the publication in and of itself, unless you're asking to be deceived. Through very quick research (isn't Wikipedia great? We'll cover their validity later, thank you.) I was able to determine that the publication in question leans to the political left, but still has right wing articles, writers, and editorials. Make of that what you will, since I'm not going to tell you what to think about political affiliations. The Independent also is generally reputable, but there have been cases of baseless accusations. Is this article one of those times?

Something to pay attention to about this article, there is no bibliographical citation. Granted, there are mentions of things an enlightened reader could follow up on, such as the organization which administered the tests, but we are not told the exact means used to create the test, merely a general conglomeration for the layman.

Now, I am aware of the general disinterest in such things, but shouldn't they at least be made available for those who wish to pursue them? Am I reading too much into this in an effort to have the most balanced and well rounded opinion possible? Likely.

The reason I'm placing so much stress in this instances is because I linked to this article on my facebook page, and one of my teachers commented on it. Rather than immediately dismiss his opinion and cautious approach on the subject because of an opposing viewpoint, I chose to follow up. His statements were valid, and if I refuse to listen to them, how will I learn?

And isn't learning the point?