> This is not what he did. He just explained to you that the outcomes for all those subgroups are basically better in the US than elsewhere.
He literally said that USA has excellent educational system. The explanation with statistical gerrymandering and random comparisons followed.
>Even that is a moot point though, because the aggregate US score is already perfectly comparable to e.g. EU level
EU level isn’t great. Besides, EU recently experienced major influx of immigrants (on the scale of millions). USA is #18 in the latest rating, 7-15% difference in the score with top 5%.
And yes, American math curriculum is indeed a joke.
> Describing the US education system as "bad" (=> compared to peer-nations) is just objectively wrong.
I didn’t say it is bad. You are replying to my comment where I basically say that you cannot say it’s excellent based on THAT data.
He literally said that USA has excellent educational system. The explanation with statistical gerrymandering and random comparisons followed.
>Even that is a moot point though, because the aggregate US score is already perfectly comparable to e.g. EU level
EU level isn’t great. Besides, EU recently experienced major influx of immigrants (on the scale of millions). USA is #18 in the latest rating, 7-15% difference in the score with top 5%.
And yes, American math curriculum is indeed a joke.
> Describing the US education system as "bad" (=> compared to peer-nations) is just objectively wrong.
I didn’t say it is bad. You are replying to my comment where I basically say that you cannot say it’s excellent based on THAT data.