Someone's bound to notice it, so I'll just say it. I find it disturbing that on Question #3, only 58% of americans realize that Afghanistan was the home of the Taliban and Al Qaeda movements. Even more disturbing, the USA scored the worst on that question. If Bush wins, I'm moving to Canada.
it's not like canadians had a much better percentage themselves... I wasn't surprised the americans did so poorly, but I WAS surprised that the rest of the world wasn't way, way better.. except sweden. Let's move there.
Americans did even worse actually finding Afghanistan on the map, let alone know that the Taliban and Al Quaeda were based there.
I scored 100%, but it was not really a very difficult quiz. Meanwhile, the Swedes do seem to know where shit is in the world.
I got 100% too, but that quiz was for shit. Easy as hell. If my countrymen/women couldn't pass that, I fear for us.
So what's the root cause of the US's dismal performance? Ruling out the conjecture that Americans are just plain stupid, we're left with the assumption that the American educational system has failed in terms of teaching geography. Why? Is it that our methods are poor? Or perhaps there's just not a focus on teaching the subject. Either way, I find it disturbing. How are Americans expected to compete in today's international economy? Americans are worried about outsourcing jobs to India - they're lucky if they could point India out on the map!
I'd say that disinterest is as big a factor as the educational system. Americans are bombarded by our own culture so much that the rest of the world barely seems to exist and certainly doesn't seem to matter very much compared to whatever Paris Hilton did yesterday or that new CD from J. Lo or even the Kerry/Bush matchup. Of course, that's just a WAG from me.
Equally disturbing that there are more Canadians, French, Japanese, Mexicans and Swedes than Americans who know where America is (Question 11). I just really really hope that those who got it wrong got America confused with Canada, given that the other two options were China and Colombia.
See also the Geography Olympics; at the time of writing, gold medal in Being Best At Locating Countries On A Map was being won by Cyprus...
This test is way too easy. The hardest question for me was the location of Sweden. I just had to recall that Norway=Fjords, so Sweden is on the right.
I find it funny that they say Kashmir is disputed territory, yet the world map clearly shows it as part of Pakistan. This is a peculiarity that I've noticed only in maps drawen in the U.S.
e
I have to agree with briank. I think that Americans, for the most part have a strong native intelligence, it's just that this stuff just isn't made important to us. I had a theory that Americans suffer from being too powerful.
Smaller, less mega-powerful countries might actually be affected, for example, by who the governor of an American state is, or if Japan elects a conservative head of state. We are so insulated by our power and our wealth that it really doesn't matter much where Afghanistan is or if Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. We are fat and dumb will be lead to the slaughter if we don’t smarten up as "the the times, they are a’ changin’."
have
Two comments:
1. When I said "If Bush wins, I'm moving to canada" I meant that the statistic I pointed out *could* be because american's know that (Al Qaeda = Terrorism). Also, bush has mashed into the minds of many that (Terrorism = Iraq). So using basic laws of logic, we can derive that (Al Qaeda = Iraq). and since Iraq was the first choice on the list. I'm guessing that the 32% that got it wrong put Iraq. Surprising? not in my mind.
2. And also Sweden ranks #3 in the worldwide literacy rates. with Iceland in the No. 2 spot and Norway in the lead.
Only 25% of the Amercians polled got the correct estimate of US population. There's nothing international about that question.
The locate countries questions were a little too easy - I too had to think "Okay, Norway is on the outside, Sweden on the inside, and Denmark across the straits" - but then I realised they didn't even list Norway as an option. Provided you were in the right region, the right choices were the only possible choice.
But I did get a question wrong - I thought that there might be more Hindus than Christians, but I was wrong.
There are a couple harder tests around, that have been posted to mofi before - one for the states in this thread, with a world test linked in the comments.
kenshin, ha ha ha...that's funny (and oh so true).
The US is pretty behind when it comes to schooling, and it's is not because we're fat fucks or some other blah blah blah, the fact of the matter is that we don't have a good public educational system in place, and unless your parents (or yourself) actually worried about teaching you(rself) these things, you'd be a dumb American (oh wait, polls show that we are)...
I mean, I got 100% of those questions right but none of them were picked up from school (or at least not a US school)
Stop looking for excuses. I mean, shouldn't the richest ppl in the world have the best edu. system? only makes sense.
I also agree with briank. Insulation and bombardment of our own culture makes it difficult for us to notice other regions of the world. This is even evident on a much smaller scale. I live in Manhattan which is a boro of NYC and if you were to ask me where Queens (another boro) is in relation to my boro I would struggle with the answer. Ask a New Yorker for directions to anywhere outside of his/her community and you realize how insulated we are.
I really wouldn't blame the kids that much. Even in my own very expensive prep school days, where geography prizes were doled out and we had class wide geography projects, we spent maybe 1 week of the year on geography, and the test was widely (and tacitly allowed) cheated on. The question isn't why the kids don't know, but why the parents and the system don't care.
I'm actually a little disturbed by the surprisingly low number of Japanese who could not identify the Pacific. It's not low, low, but I would imagine it should be closer to 98%. I wonder if this is a case of map bias. Perhaps with a more Japan-centric map projection, the percentage would be higher.
Test is ridiculously easy. I was partially schooled in the US.
Say it even though I got the one about the most numerous religion wrong -- when I took geography it was Islam, but now it's apparently Christianity. So I learned something.
To wit: those evangelicals have been busy.
Yeah, I could have sworn Islam would be the answer too.
Insularity does have something to do with it -- the lack of understanding between North and South in this country is sometimes staggering, for instance, so looking outside our borders seems even less likely -- but I agree with Warrior. Part of the problem is our educational system, which is in bad need of repair. Hell, every time there's a statewide budget crisis in this country (and this has happened in each of the three states I've lived in), education is first on the chopping block, and routinely has the most cash cut.
jb, I also answered that there might be more Hindus than Christians. (I remember being taught that Christianity was not the most-followed religion in the world, despite what most of my classmates thought.) Yes, those evangelicals have been very busy.
19/20. I didn't realize christianity had the most followers.
20/20...but then again i did all my schooling up to the undergrad level outside the US.
Damn the Swedes. Stop outscoring us on this test, or we'll invade you!
Anyway, I don't really pay much attention to religion, so I guess I got that one wrong. But...if India and China have something like 35% of the world's population, how can Christianity be the #1 religion?
Very few Chinese have a religion.
@peoplefilter: India and China are not religiously monolithic. India contains muslims, Sikhs, etc; and Hinduism is itself not even one religion. The Chinese are nominally athiest, but I assume there is a lot of folk religion outside the cities. Then there's Conficianism, which some people don't consider as a religion.
Badonkadonk, I hate to say this, but if you don't know where Queens is in relation to Manhattan then how the hell do you get around? I mean, i dunno if you've noticed but trains like the 7 (north-bound) say "to Flushings - Queens" or the 1,2,3,9 say (south-bound) "to Brooklyn" or if going north they say "Bronx" same thing with the A, C, E ...it's pretty self explanatory, and manhattan ain't that big. I work here.
I thought it was more than a little sad that only 89% of Americans could locate America on the world map. You'd think 100% of a countries residents should be able to point it out on a map.
Blew the Christianity question; went with Hindus for some reason.
What I will say is that the US didn't really do all that poorly per se. Sure, we botched a lot of crap, but we held our own with Great Britain and Canada most of the time. And we beat Mexico.
Eh. This seems more Chicken Little than actually damning.
And I went to public schools.
To cut the educational system some slack, before sept 11, 2001, why did Americans really NEED to know anything about geography? I mean, sure one could probably argue correctly that if more Americans knew about the rest of the world and understood it, we wouldn't be in the middle of a "War on Terra," but really, how does not knowing where sweden is impact the daily lives of 90% of Americans? It isn't like you can drive around and accidentally get there.
I got a 19/20 (missed the religion question like other folks), but does that make me a better person than fellow Americans who didn't do as well?
18/20. I got the Christianity one wrong, and shamefully the Afghanistan one. I blame the puniness of the map.
20/20. I am teh rad.
I think the religion question is difficult - what would have happened if they had listed Catholics and Protestants seperately, or by denomination? Or Hindus by sect, for that matter. Would Catholicism be the single largest Church (one heirarchial structure), but maybe smaller than some Hindu sects?
Heh, I picked Islam, too. I was impressed with Mexico onthat question. I got it wrong and 92% of Mexico got it right. I had hoped to see their scores stay high.
I blew the Sweden question. But from the results, it looks like the only people that really know where Sweden is are there already.
That Geography Olympics test is embarassingly difficult. I suppose it's considered cheating if you use google to look stuff up.
Also, I'm hardly surprised by American scores considering about half of Americans (okay, 'likely voters') will vote 4 more years for Bush. No comment on the Canadian score :)
I got 70% on the Geography Olympics, but according to the site the entire US averaged about 63%. I after seeing how poorly we did on the National Geographic quiz I would have thought that we would have done far, far worse.
"Badonkadonk, I hate to say this, but if you don't know where Queens is in relation to Manhattan then how the hell do you get around?"
Limos, mostly.
I know, I know, I really should try the subway one of these days.
19/20, me three re xtianity/islam
but this question has the best results. Please, come teach us how to find our country on a map!
um, your link she is broke.
(Devil's advocate) So, what's the point about knowing which country is where? If I were going to sail a ship there, or go by caravan, the location details would be important, but, if I going to fly, why would I care about the details?
In the 1960s, I found that being able to add up long rows of numbers didn't help anymore since I could use a calculator. Or later, when I could use computers to calculate results based on equations I set up, did the fact that I didn't actually do the math make my answers somehow lacking, even if they were right?
And, how important is it thay I can locate Serbia on a map? As opposed to finding an on line map which shows me where it is?
path: What's the point in having any knowledge, now that I have google?
I know you're playing devil's advocate, but I think the reason Americans do poorly at this type of thing is because intelligence isn't valued in American society (and, to a lesser extent, Canadian and British society). If you're above average intelligence in high school (or, god forbid, enjoy learning) you become a social outcast...a geek, if you will. And 'normal' people don't like geeks. Smart people aren't revered and respected, actors and athletes are. And worst of all...geeks don't get laid.
It just doesn't pay to be smart, and unfortunately, kids are learning that at an early age. Americans are probably more capable than anyone of learning geography, what with dozens of channels of information on their TVs. They *choose* not to.
Actually, rocket88, I think it's because the US has only two close neighbors. And our country is big enough that many (most?) of us will never visit them. In fact, many of us will never visit all the US states. I've managed to go to most of them and can find them all on the map, but what does that really do for me?
If I lived in Europe, I'm sure I would have a firmer grasp on the Nordic countries - maybe even the Baltic ones.
While I did study geography in school, nothing made it more real than travel. The second best teacher has been wars. My knowledge of Europe and parts of Asia came from WWII, pretty much, with some spots filled in by visiting, or longing to visit, other countries. The Korean and Viet Nam wars opened other parts of the map, as did events in the middle east. But knowing where Tibet is on the map doesn't seem to have much practical value.
In the on-line community, it's nice to understand who's in which continent since time differences affect our communication, but, it's still not clear to me what the advantage is to be able to locate any country on the map, unless I were going to travel there on foot or by camel, or drive there, or sail there.
Knowledge for knowledge's sake is a nice thing, but I think that the value of geography for most people is pretty tenuous. For example, the majority of the people in the town where I live have roots in Mexico, and many go there once a year to visit family. I don't know that many of them could point out Mexico on a map, but they know how to drive to the places they came from. What are they missing?
I love looking at maps and planning great voyages to exotic lands, but I'm still not convinced that map reading is a modern survival thing. My mind can be changed if you can give me practical reasons. :)
I'm sorry, but for all the sad results, I think this one was pretty depressing. You're trying to tell me that roughly 10% of French youths surveyed do not even know their own country's currency?
As you doubtless know, the Euro's only come in over the last couple of years after a crossover period of a year or so. Some people are still thinking in francs. Surprise you?
Oh yeah, and the survey's from 2002.
path -
The practical reasons for knowing geography are for understanding world news and politics, and (more generally) how the world works.
This test did hit many of those points - where (and what) is the Euro, which countries are disputing over Kashmir (and actually have WMD), what country AlQuaeda is based in. I think it is no shame to have trouble telling the Balkans apart (I know where Yugoslavia WAS) - but knowing where they are in general helps understand some of the tensions. If you mix up Norway and Sweden, who cares (other than the Swedes and Norwegians, of course), but if you know where they are, maybe you are more likely to know that they manage to mix a very healthy economy with a strong social safety net and high standard of living, all on land that is marginal compared to most of Europe (They, of course, do benefit like the rest of us in the Western world from unequal trade with the third world).
I have a silly reason that I have gotten good at geography - I got addicted to a Risk-like computer game which had real countries borders. So I conquered my way into learning the countries of Africa, South America, Asia (including the SSRs). But it has helped me enormously - in my studies (I was able to follow an African history class with no prior knowledge but geography), and in everyday life (when Cameroon did well in the World Cup in 1998, I knew where they were, when I meet someone from Zimbabwe or read about problems there, I can put in my mind.)
Maps really do help my conceptions of places - I spent 2 or 3 years studying English history before I learned the counties, and I had a terrible time understanding how Lancashire, for example, related to Essex - it's like trying to read about the US and not knowing the difference between Texas and New York State, or where California is. Maybe other people can just remember their characteristics, but I need to know where they are exactly (and what kind of climate, vegetation, elevation, etc).
But maybe it is also that a knowledge of pure geography rarely comes on its own (Risk computer games aside) - people who know where a place is are more likely to know more about that place. And knowing more about elsewhere in the world is always a priori good - it leads to a greater understanding of diversity in society, of the alternatives to your own (which may convince you that your own really is on the best track, but you get a better idea of why), of why people do what they do, even if the reasons don't make sense to you.
Well, it's not like the kid said "Can I borrow a franc, um, I mean euro?". They saw it and then actively chose something else in the list without making the connection.
Today, that would be inexcusable. However, back in 2002 is a different story, so I withdraw.
I will cast my shame instead on Mexico for #10 (I mean, that's not even geography, so much as cognitive reasoning), with a special honorable mention to the US for having far and away the lowest percentage of people able to locate their own country on a map.
* I really hear you on the lack of opprotunity to travel for North Americans. I've met an occasional non-North Ams who saw a lack of travel to other countries as a lack of desire - what she didn't understand was that we just don't have the same opprotunities. (She was actually Indian, but had lived in Europe because her father worked for the diplomatic service).
When I was in western Canada, I met many Europeans who had only visted British Columbia, and thought they had seen Canada (and after missing the best bits - the Maritimes!). They just didn't realise how big it was, and how different it could be. Sometimes when I'm in the UK, I play the parlour game of "boast how long X trip would be if it were in Canada" - 7 hours on the train to Cornwall (so worth it, it's gorgeous) becomes 25+ hours Toronto to Halifax.
It's not just driving/trains - flights are now much cheaper all over Europe. At the meet-up, ilyadeux mentioned that it's now easier to visit the Continent from London than most of the rest of Britain.
So yeah, this is a long-winded answer to the "get a passport, lazy NorthAms" attitude (not expressed here, but elsewhere). Before I had a passport, I had travelled well over 5000km and seen two oceans and everything in between (except Saskachewan, I unfortunately slept through that). I think the better judge would be to compare how many Europeans leave Europe, and then I think the difference wouldn't be so great. As for the diversity issue, I can visit a dozen or more countries just walking around downtown Toronto, so I don't think I'm any more parochial.
Perhaps the numbers involved have a bearing here? The more people take the test, the more chance there is of people getting questions wrong, right? Surely there are more people using the internet/taking the test in the US, GB etc than there are in Sweden (for example)...
I can visit a dozen or more countries just walking around downtown Toronto
No offence, but I don't think that's quite true.
Dr Dodger: The charts at the bottom are from the original survey in the magazine, so they should be static.
Wolof - you're right. I would have to go to the suburbs as well.
Somehow in my mind this connects with how Americans overseas tend to barricade themselves away. Am I the only one who's seen this? I was told about a survey once that showed only seven percent of GI's stationed in Germany ever got off the base further than the nearest place to get a beer. Does this affect you and me? Seems like if you don't know where Iraq is, you could be forced to visit it one day. Excuse me here, I'm rambling; I mean it seems like the meme of "teach them how to think, not just rote facts," leaves us vulnerable to ideologues who only need to persuade a few. Specialization and catastrophe. Or something like that.
tracicle: thank you. I should pay more attention in class...
20/20! Eighth grade, here i come! (See, not all American young adults are retarded...)
Again, I have a pretty good knowledge of where most countries are, and would agree that knowing their shared borders can give me important information. And, I can read various sources to find what their strenghts an weaknesses are, and what they grow, and what they mine, where they are, and what their governments, etc are., but, really, what is the purpose of being able to point to a specific spot on a map unless I plan to go there by driving, sailing, etc.? The rest of that information is different from pure geography.
I understand the love of clarity of geographical precision (the exact location on a map), but you still haven't told me how it's all that important in general. If I have a general, or really informed, idea of the Middle East, or Asia, or South America, or whatever, what do points for identifying country boundries do to make me more informed? And, again, I'm good at maps, and idenifying countries, I'm just not why it should make me more wise than someone who can just talk about the interactions of those areas without being able to point to a spot.
Come folks, gimme something that doesn't depend on something other than national boundries to explain why the real purpose of geograpy matters to anyone who isn't travelling.
Again, I have a pretty good knowledge of where most countries are, and would agree that knowing their shared borders can give me important information. And, I can read various sources to find what their strenghts an weaknesses are, and what they grow, and what they mine, where they are, and what their governments, etc are., but, really, what is the purpose of being able to point to a specific spot on a map unless I plan to go there by driving, sailing, etc.? The rest of that information is different from pure geography.
I understand the love of clarity of geographical precision (the exact location on a map), but you still haven't told me how it's all that important in general. If I have a general, or really informed, idea of the Middle East, or Asia, or South America, or whatever, what do points for identifying country boundries do to make me more informed? And, again, I'm good at maps, and idenifying countries, I'm just not why it should make me more wise than someone who can just talk about the interactions of those areas without being able to point to a spot.
Come folks, gimme something that doesn't depend on something other than national boundries to explain why the real purpose of geograpy matters to anyone who isn't travelling.
e