Global Geographic Literacy Survey

Yes, it was that easy. I've done miserably on other, tougher, geography tests.


Sorry, you may have misunderstood my question.

Was the test for which NGS reported the survey data (e.g. "11% of Americans couldn't find their plates with their forks, while only 2% of the French had such difficulty") also done as a four-way multiple choice question where the distractors had no geographical relationship to the correct answer?
 
I got 19/20 on the test

(...snip...)

So while I passed, I still feel my knowledge is pretty shaky.
In other words, you're not satisfied that you know as much as you should. But think of how many people used process of elimination and still couldn't get the right answers. US replies were consistently below 50%. Even the question to locate the US got more correct responses from Sweden than from the US, which makes me think once again that maybe universal enfranchisement isn't such a good idea.

You aren't satisfied with how much you know. But if you were in a US high school today, your teachers would be congratulating you on how much you know. Gotta reinforce that goddam self-esteem. :mad:
 
19/20. I missed the one about the worlds largest religion because I could have swore I read somewhere that Buddhism was the largest and that made sense to me with China being so populous and with Buddhism having such a large presence in Asia in general. Ah well.

I don't recall being taught a lot of geography in school, though. We had a generic 'social studies' class that was a mix of history and geography. We didn't have a geography class in my high school either, but I went to a very tiny school out in the middle of nowhere. We just had the basics required by state law and very little else. So my experience with geography education, or lack thereof, is probably not typical.

However, I like to think that between being a news junkie since I was in grade school and being a history major in college, I have picked up a lot of geography by osmosis.
 
So, it is lack of education? Poor quality of education?

Why is geography seen as less-than-important?
 
OBTW, 20/20. I'm just glad they didn't ask me to locate Cameroon. I've always been fascinated by maps, but I was always an avid reader when I was a kid. My parents got me a set of encyclopedias when I was a kid, full of color pictures, and written for 7th-graders - a terrific job. I'd read them every night before going to bed. One of the reasons I know all the answers when Mrs. BPSCG and I watch Jeopardy is because I learned so many of them reading The Golden Book Encyclopedia when I was 12.

FWIW, my sister got her oldest a one-volume encyclopedia when he was about 12, hoping for similar results. I paged through it, and when I observed that it had an article about Mao Tse-tung, but nothing about Thomas Jefferson, she threw it away in a fury.
 
So, it is lack of education? Poor quality of education?

Why is geography seen as less-than-important?

My bet is it's American isolationism again. Americans, by and large -- and of course, I'm stereotyping horribly here, so if this offends you, just chill out -- have a tendency both not to travel widely, and not necessarily to be concerned about the issues of people different or distant from them. This, of course, has been the natural state of humanity for the past ten thousand years.... this applies not just nationally (e.g. American disregard of non-Americans), but also regionally and locally as well -- ask a New Yorker about New Jersey politics and you're likely to get a blank look because it doesn't affect him.

Americans also have, culturally, a long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism and specifically of disregard and disrespect for abstract knowledge. Geography, especially of places you never intend to visit, is a pretty good example of useless abstract knowledge....
 
It's interesting that pretty much every country did terribly on the question of "which countries have over a billion people".

I would have thought that would be an easy one...
 
Was the survey test really that easy?


I thought it was pretty darn easy. But then I got 20/20. Maybe later, I will get my oldest son and my sister-in-law to try the test. My sister-in-law is dreadful at geography (BTW, we went to the same middle school and high school, so it's not a matter of each of us receiving a different education). Once, we were driving down Pacific Coast Highway and she asked me, "what ocean is that?". Jesus Christ on Crutches. She has lived her entire life within 15 miles of the Pacific Ocean, yet she didn't know if it was the Pacific or the Atlantic that we live by.
 
My bet is it's American isolationism again. Americans, by and large -- and of course, I'm stereotyping horribly here, so if this offends you, just chill out --

Heavens, no. I'm not offended.

have a tendency both not to travel widely

This is backed by the survey also:

"In Sweden, for example, 89% of young adults speak more than one language, and 92% have traveled outside of their home country in the past three years. By comparison, just one-third (36%) of U.S. young adults reported speaking two or more languages and only 21% reported traveling outside the U.S. in the past three years."
(page 8)

and not necessarily to be concerned about the issues of people different or distant from them. This, of course, has been the natural state of humanity for the past ten thousand years.... this applies not just nationally (e.g. American disregard of non-Americans), but also regionally and locally as well -- ask a New Yorker about New Jersey politics and you're likely to get a blank look because it doesn't affect him.

There is a difference between being concerned about the issues and being affected by them. Americans may not be concerned about e.g. the Middle East, but you cannot possibly say that it doesn't affect them.

There are thousands of troops right now in Iraq. Iraq has been the single most talked about issue for a very long time now in the U.S. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that it affects Americans.

Americans also have, culturally, a long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism and specifically of disregard and disrespect for abstract knowledge. Geography, especially of places you never intend to visit, is a pretty good example of useless abstract knowledge....

But it isn't "useless": How can you understand e.g. geopolitical issues if you have no idea where the countries are, what their background are, etc?

It isn't merely knowledge of other countries that are lacking, either. 30% of young Americans think that the U.S. population is 1 billion to 2 billion people! Only 25% selected the proper range (150 million to 350 million).

That's truly astounding.
 
I don't recall being taught a lot of geography in school, though. We had a generic 'social studies' class that was a mix of history and geography.

Same here, in all five states I went to schools in. I think there was an elective semester class called "Geography" in my high school, but it was the soft option for people who couldn't handle history. Certainly all the history courses required learning the geography of wherever we were studying.

I always did well because I've always loved maps. I would pin the more interesting ones from National Geographic on my walls as a kid. Which is how at one point I knew all the capitals of Africa, and all the provinces of China. Although I've forgotten most of them by now.

I wonder why it's so surprising to find that people are ignorant of geography? I know there's a lot of ignorance about, and it doesn't really surprise me when someone doesn't know Greek mythology or art or literature or science or history, but it's more shocking to be ignorant of geography. Why is that?

eta: the only ignorance I can think of that's more shocking than geographical ignorance is medical ignorance; I'm talking about the people who haven't the vaguest notion of how the human body works, or what organs they have, or what they do.
 
So, it is lack of education? Poor quality of education?

That is a question being strongly debated over here, so I really can't give you an answer. My own opinion is that our schools do a poor job of teaching because the education system over here is a social & political football, so very little effort is put into actually improving things while tons of effort is put into creating the APPEARANCE of improving things.

One thing that both conservatives and liberals generally agree on over here is the sorry state of our schools. Unfortunately, they can't agree on WHY our schools suck. Not much gets done.

This is compopunded I think, by the anti-intellectual streak that dr. kitten mentioned. I sadly have to agree with him that it exists. For some stupid inexplicable reason, being smart is generally looked at as a bad thing by a lot of people but especially among the kids themselves. This means the kids are not only not motivated to work hard in school but are actually discouraged by their peers from doing so.

Then there are parents who will sue if their kid is held back or given a bad grade, even if the kid is a complete screw-up. They don't help either.

There are a ton of other problems with our schools too, those are just the ones I perceive as the biggies. But entire books can and have been written on why our public school system is the worst in the industrialized world.

Why is geography seen as less-than-important?

That one's easy. Because of priorities. Given the problems our schools have, they have their hands full trying to get our kids to learn to read and write and do math sufficiently. Everything beyond those basics is seen as gravy. Sad, but true.
 
But entire books can and have been written on why our public school system is the worst in the industrialized world.

Are the private schools doing that much better? Do the private schools "produce" people that are on par with the rest of the Western world?
 
There is a difference between being concerned about the issues and being affected by them. Americans may not be concerned about e.g. the Middle East, but you cannot possibly say that it doesn't affect them.

I don't think I said that Iraq didn't affect them. But I think that at some level, most Americans are still fundamentally not concerned, despite the number of troops over there. And I think their lack of concern is being carefully nurtured by various governmental and pressure groups, because lack of concern keeps anyone from calling for any sweeping changes in the United States itself.

Just as a simple analogy -- electricity affects almost every aspect of my life, but I'm not especially concerned about it. It's there when I need it to be, and if it goes out for some reason (a power line breaks or something), I simply phone the relevant person and it gets sorted out. I'm affected by it, but I'm not especially concerned.

But it isn't "useless": How can you understand e.g. geopolitical issues if you have no idea where the countries are, what their background are, etc?

Why does one need to understand geopolitical issues? I don't understand electricity -- and the whole point of the power grid and the electric companies is that I don't need to understand it. It's there when I want it to be (or I phone someone who does understand it). The bright young men in the white lab coats will sort it all out of something goes wrong -- that's what they get paid to do, to understand electricity.

Part of the problem with our current technological society is that one can't understand everything, and one needs to rely on specialists. (The standard example I've often heard is that no one single person in the entire world could make a pencil by himself.) I consider myself reasonably broadly educated, but I can name dozens of services I demand, literally on a daily basis, that I couldn't myself perform and I don't need to understand. I can't harvest coffee, I can't mill paper, I can't manufacture fiber-optic cable, I can't refine petrol, I can't bind a book, I can't vulcanize rubber, I can't injection-mold plastics, et cetera. I also can't set a bone, fill a cavity, weld pipe, lay brick, adjust spark plug timing, install lock-sets, make cheese, butcher a steer, .... the list goes on and on.

I can, however, find Afghanistan on a map. Let's look at just how useful that skill is. How often do you need someone to butcher a steer for you? Let's see what happens when you wander in to the local butcher's shop, and you say "I need a half-kilo of sausages. I don't have any money on me right now, but I can find Afghanistan on a map for you. Perhaps we can cut a deal?"

Now, I probably could cut a deal if what I offered was to re-paint the butcher's house, or lay a new brick walkway for him, or fill his daughter's cavities, or even haul the weeds out of his back garden. But what hole in the butcher's life can I fill with my knowledge of how many people there are in the United States?
 
Are the private schools doing that much better? Do the private schools "produce" people that are on par with the rest of the Western world?


I am not exactly sure. From what I understand, they do a lot better than public schools, at the very least. How they stack up to the rest of the world, I don't know.

Unfortunately, no links for you since I am basing this on something I read in Newsweek magazine some time ago and something I heard on NPR.
 
This is backed by the survey also:
"In Sweden, for example, 89% of young adults speak more than one language, and 92% have traveled outside of their home country in the past three years....
Careful there. It's a lot easier to travel outside your own country if the next country over is at most a couple of hundred miles away. Someone could travel from Spain to Italy and cover less distance than it would take him to get from El Paso Texas, to Houston. It's almost impossible for a Frenchman to travel 200 miles in any direction without leaving France. I'm headed on a trip to the Rocky Mountains this weekend. About 2000 miles, and I'll still be landlocked in the US. Fly 2000 miles in any direction from Paris and you won't even be in Europe any more, let alone France.
By comparison, just one-third (36%) of U.S. young adults reported speaking two or more languages and only 21% reported traveling outside the U.S. in the past three years."
Careful again. Since English is the world's lingua franca, is this a meaningful comparison? To many Europeans, English isn't a foreign language so much as it is a second language. How many Europeans speak a foreign language other than English?
 
Was the survey test really that easy?

You can download the survey from the page.

And no, it wasn't, since there were no multiple-choice alternatives given, only maps with numbered countries.
 
Are the private schools doing that much better? Do the private schools "produce" people that are on par with the rest of the Western world?

That's not a fair question, for several reasons.

First of all, the United States educational system differs from most of the rest of the Western World in focus -- the United States tends to provide much broader education in general, and also much more focused on science and technology education. As a simple example, I have a number of UK-educated professional colleagues working in computer related disciplines who have never set foot in a mathematics classroom since the age of 12 or so. They focused -- and they were permitted by the educational system to focus -- on the arts, humanities, and literature to the virtual exclusions of math and technology. That wouldn't be permitted in the US public education system; almost everyone has to take both math and science to the age of 16, and there's no such thing as A-levels or similar aspects of "focus"; the graduation requirements are typically uniform within a district or school.

Similarly, most of the rest of the Western World tracks students to a much greater extent. I believe there are, for example, three different, official, state-sponsored forms of secondary education in the Netherlands. If you want to get in to university, you more or less have to be in the top track. American secondary education is designed in large part to provide a college-preparatory education to everyone, rather than a vocational or general education, while still meeting the overal (non-specialized) graduation requirements.

One of the things that gets lost in traditional college prep, at least in the States, is therefore the subjects that are traditionally part of general education, but not related to college entry requirements. For example, geography is usually displaced for history. Literature dominates over "communications," and the holy trinity of biology/chemistry/physics trumps other sciences or vocational skills. One can learn physics in secondary school, but not typically business or technology skills.
 
20 of 20. I think that the only ones I could not have answered in grammar school where those relating to the Taliban/Al Qaeda (non-existent then) and populations exceeding a billion (only China then).

But then I had the advantage of having been educated in military (small "M", army brat) schools in my formative years. I am appalled at how poorly kids performed - it bodes well, I am sure, for our democracy.
 
You can download the survey from the page.

And no, it wasn't, since there were no multiple-choice alternatives given, only maps with numbered countries.
Wow, having seen that, the National Geographic "quiz" was extremely misleading, compared to the actual survey given.
 

Back
Top Bottom