Articles like this put me off because it is blatant propaganda.
Canada isn't an education superpower. The silly international ranking of kids' test taking abilities is meaningless.
Real education superpowers are those with top universities which in turn produce economic gains/growth/etc.
If canada was a true economic superpower, we'd see them producing Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
Frankly, there is only 1 education superpower - the US. Go check a list of top 100 universities. It's almost entirely US colleges. Britain is the next far distant competitor. The only other nation who may challenge the US to become an education superpower in the future is china as they are building tons of universities. This is something we did in the US in the 1800s. Build a incredible number of universities as our economy grew. The only question is whether china will be able to match our quality because they are going to surpass our quantity by a large margin.
Also, if the BBC journalist did any bit of research, they would know that Canada's "150th anniversary" is fake propaganda itself. Canada isn't 150 years old. They gained their independence in 1983.
> Real education superpowers are those with top UNIVERSITIES which in turn produce economic gains/growth/etc.
Why is your metric considered more apt than the article's? Good student performance consistently correlates with higher-paying jobs and higher quality of life. At the nation level, this correlates to higher Human-Development Index, which is generally considered a pretty good thing to have...
> If canada was a true economic superpower, we'd see them producing Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
That is utter nonsense. What does this have to do with education at all? Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, and Steve Jobs were all college dropouts. They simply had the right idea at the right time. Their economic success has very little to do with the U.S. education system.
> Good student performance consistently correlates with higher-paying jobs and higher quality of life.
Because that's the more sensible definition for superpower?
> Good student performance consistently correlates with higher-paying jobs and higher quality of life. At the nation level, this correlates to higher Human-Development Index, which is generally considered a pretty good thing to have...
Great. I agree. Did I disagree anywhere? My issue is with the usage of the word superpower. And americans on average earn more than canadians.
> Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, and Steve Jobs were all college dropouts.
And? They did go to college.
> They simply had the right idea at the right time.
Right.
> Their economic success has very little to do with the U.S. education system.
Ah I see. When the US education creates successes, it has nothing to do with the US education system. When canada's education system produces successes, canada is a superpower.
As I said, my only issue is with the BBC blatant propagandistic article. Their use of "superpower" and their perpetuating the lie of Canada's 150th year.
I'm for education. But canada is no more an education superpower than north korea is a nuclear superpower.
And I love your logic. Bill Gates, Zuckerburg, etc don't count. But kids taking silly tests count. Okay.
Someone hasn't had their coffee yet. We do have top-tier universities (UBC, University of Toronto, UWaterloo), who have produced outstanding research and individuals who went on to do great work abroad and developing here at home. We're home to top-tier companies like Shopify. Plus our education is much more consistent across the board, not as pay-to-win like America.
And how is 150 years of forming the Dominion of Canada not something to celebrate? "150 years ago, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia – united to create the Canadian Confederation, called the Dominion of Canada. On account of the British North America Act that became law July 1st 1867, these British colonies would be recognized as an independent nation."
> We do have top-tier universities (UBC, University of Toronto, UWaterloo)
I agree. I didn't deny that. Now compare how many top universities we have in the US? If the US has hundreds of top universities and Canada has a handful, how does that make canada an education superpower? If canada is an education superpower, then is north korea a nuclear superpower? Isn't the word superpower supposed to mean something?
> We're home to top-tier companies like Shopify.
Shopify is top-tier? It has revenues of $151 million/year.
> I agree. I didn't deny that. Now compare how many top universities we have in the US? If the US has hundreds of top universities and Canada has a handful, how does that make canada an education superpower?
Comparing raw numbers like that makes no sense considering Canada has a population of 35 million against the U.S.'s 323 million.
> Canada became "independent" in 1983. Canada celebrated its first Canada Day in 1983. To claim canada is 150 years old is a verifiable lie.
Only if you measure the "start" of a country as the time of its declaration of independence. It makes sense for the U.S. considering its specific history, but in fact, there are very few countries in the world for which this makes sense.
A better way to look at it would be to mark the beginning of a country as the time its formal constitution was written. For Canada, that's 1867, which a major politically significant event. By comparison, the Canada Act of 1983 was a formality.
> Comparing raw numbers like that makes no sense considering Canada has a population of 35 million against the U.S.'s 323 million.
Even on a per capita basis, we outstrip canada easily. But raw numbers doesn't count? So the US has 7000 nukes and north korea has 5. So calling the US a nuclear superpower doesn't matter? The US has an $18 trillion economy. So it's wrong to call the US an economic superpower? Using your logic, north korea is a nuclear superpower and norway is an economic superpower?
So what's your definition of the word superpower? Just use it in a way that suits your agenda regardless of raw numbers?
I can't believe anyone on HN is advocating for the rejections of numbers and data on HN.
> Only if you measure the "start" of a country as the time of its declaration of independence.
No. If you measure when a nation became independent. Canada can't claim to be independent when their laws/government/etc was controlled by britain until 1983. You can't claim to be an independent nation when the final say rested with britain.
> For Canada, that's 1867, which a major politically significant event.
You mean when britain consolidated its territory? Canada was still ruled and controlled by britain. If that is independence, then once again, we have a difference on what words mean.
> By comparison, the Canada Act of 1983 was a formality.
Oh was it? When canada finally took control over its constitution?
Hong kong is more independent from china than canada was. Under whose rule did canada fight in ww1? Oh that's right. "Independent" canada fought under british rule. But certainly canada was "independent" by ww2 right? Nope. All the canadian soldiers fought under british commanders.
Instead of accepting reality, you are just changing the definition of words to suit your agenda. If you want to make up your own definition of superpower or independence, then so be it.
Google et al are largely a consequence of the Cold War. That is government programs dumped massive amounts of money into tech programs creating the first wave of wealthy tech entrepreneurs, since that time the feedback loop has continued.
The valley would not exist without quality schools, but those schools are no better than Canada's. Evidence for that is the significant number of Canadians recruited to work in the valley. Google and others hire Canadians because their schools put out top performers.
It depends on your definition of a good university.
For you, the most important result might be economic gains/growth and for others, it might be scientific/academic achievements such as Nobel prizes, research papers, major scientific breakthroughs, etc.
If that's the case then the US is not the only education superpower.
> For you, the most important result might be economic gains/growth and for others, it might be scientific/academic achievements such as Nobel prizes, research papers, major scientific breakthroughs, etc.
I agree.
> If that's the case then the US is not the only education superpower.
> You're not taking into account the size of the US. If you look for per capita Nobel prizes the US is not even in the top 10.
Per capita doesn't matter when it comes to being a superpower.
The US is an economic superpower and norway isn't even though norway's per capita GDP is larger than the US.
People are so interested in pushing their agenda that they refuse to address my point.
My point was that canada isn't an education "SUPERPOWER". I'm not saying canada is a bad country. I'm not saying other nations don't produce nobel prize winners. My point was solely about the article's propagandistic use of term "superpower".
You can twist data/stats any way you want. Under no definition is canada a superpower of anything, let alone education.
I'm just pointing out what a absurd "article" BBC pushed out.
Canada isn't an education superpower. The silly international ranking of kids' test taking abilities is meaningless.
Real education superpowers are those with top universities which in turn produce economic gains/growth/etc.
If canada was a true economic superpower, we'd see them producing Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
Frankly, there is only 1 education superpower - the US. Go check a list of top 100 universities. It's almost entirely US colleges. Britain is the next far distant competitor. The only other nation who may challenge the US to become an education superpower in the future is china as they are building tons of universities. This is something we did in the US in the 1800s. Build a incredible number of universities as our economy grew. The only question is whether china will be able to match our quality because they are going to surpass our quantity by a large margin.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35776555
Also, if the BBC journalist did any bit of research, they would know that Canada's "150th anniversary" is fake propaganda itself. Canada isn't 150 years old. They gained their independence in 1983.