To preface my thoughts, I should say that I agree with the premise of the documentary - our academic standards are lacking in rigor and we are probably losing our edge in science and technology. Also, I am inclined to take a contradictory stance just because most people seem to feel strongly in favor of the film and my reactionary nature kicks in.
That said, I don't completely trust the way everything was presented in the documentary. Obviously, for practical purposes, the sample size was small. One cannot deny that the filmmakers have their own message which they want to present, and at times (especially regarding the American students) I felt the way in which they did so was a little unfair.
From the very beginning of the film the two students were presented in a negative light. Their very first comments introduced them as somewhat lazy, with a strong sense of entitlement. The Chinese girl, in contrast, was presented as a violin virtuoso.
The general tone was condescending toward the two Americans. The film had no problem showing the American students all hanging out at someone's house playing Gamecube, and then presenting some statistics about the sorry state of American education in a video game format. When the boy discussed college plans with his mom, they began with him mentioning how the college had Xbox 360s, which was irrelevant to their subsequent discussion of a potential career in computer graphics, except to suggest that he only wants to study computers because he likes to play video games. The Indian boy is portrayed as only playing chess on his computer, and the Chinese boy is never shown playing computer games, though he mentions that he does play them a lot.
Worst of all was how the American high school teacher was presented. Out of all the things they could have shown, the only time they showed a teacher interacting with students was when he was making a joking comment which was not representative of the test as a whole. Had I been that teacher, I would have been upset over the highly subjective nature of the editing. There are so many things that a film crew could show me saying during the course of a school day, that when taken out of context, would put our educational system in a bad light.
The Americans were used as an introduction to set the tone, and then the filmmakers withheld their fate until the very end to provoke outrage. As viewers, we are supposed to feel bad for the hardworking Chinese and Indian students that had to settle for their second choice, whereas the ignorant Americans yet again strutted off triumphantly into the sunset.
Obviously, expecting a documentary to maintain objectivity is senseless, but the filmmakers' bias is too strong (and too evident) for me to put complete faith in what they have presented.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you in that I believed in the premise of the film, but had trouble accepting the message of the director because I felt he was biased.
While the students in India and China were studying very hard to get into the top academic schools in world (Yale, the ITT institute in India, the most prestigious math university in China) the American students were not. I'm not saying that Indiana and Purdue are not good schools, but that if the filmmakers had followed students who were trying to get into the Ivy leagues, we may have seen the American students in a different light. I know there are students here who do study a lot, who take SAT prep classes, like the Indian boy, to try to get into the college of their choice. Not all Americans are handed their successes on a silver platter and I wish we had seen some of that in the film. It may not have conveyed the important message that we need to raise our academic standards, but it may have shown a broader picture of the United States.
Jonathan, my friend, you may not realize how much I value that reactionary nature of yours! Truth be told, I have a bit of a subversive side myself. I hope no one finds out.
I actually agree with both you and Erin that the documentary was biased. But as you point out...as a documentary, its bias is practically inherent. I suppose documentaries don't have to be biased by definition; but they certainly are by the finest traditions of the form.
Was the film fair? In some ways, I agree it almost certainly was not. In addition to not showing American kids who were more studious, like the ones Erin mentions who are competing for the Ivy League schools, it also does not show the education, or lack thereof, of the poorer people in India and China.
But in another way, I do think it is fair. The sad truth is that the two American students shown are identifiably well above average. I don't pretend to know whether the other kids shown were average for their countries, because I have no concrete knowledge about that.
However, what I think makes the comparison fair is that, in a few years, those two American students may be competing for jobs with those Indian and Chinese students.
This generation will have to compete globally like none before it; and this trend seems only likely to increase.
The sheer numbers make the situation appear even more bleak. For the sake of argument, let's say the same percentage of people in each of the three countries are engineers. Say 1%, arbitrarily. That means there are 3 million American engineers, competing in a global market against 13 million Chinese engineers and 11 million Indian engineers. Talk about unfair!
But unfairness has its uses. For one thing, it can get people talking, and get them motivated. And another thing, I sometimes think that fairness is overrated; or at least, misunderstood. On the rare occasion that a student will complain to me that something is not fair because someone else got such-and-such, I get very excited to explain that fairness has nothing to do with someone else. It has everything to do with: did you get what you deserved?
And in that sense, I think the two American students were a more-than-fair representation of what goes on in our nation.
I almost wonder if the feeling of unfairness that you got was intentional. We Americans have a strong reaction against unfairness. And I think that is an absolutely wonderful thing. The world would be a much better place if everyone got what he or she deserved--good and bad.
But since we Americans have such a strong reaction to unfairness, it can be a good motivator to get us up off our complacent backsides.
And that, I think, was the film's intent.
Here's one point upon which the film did NOT show bias in favor of the learners in that plucky Eastern Hemisphere: boy bands. I dare say that we could randomly choose any four male youths from Philadelphia and they would harmonize better than those Indian youths did.
Your points, Jonathan and Erin, are extremely well taken here. Chris' point--which he relayed from his World History sections--is well taken, too.
If we take the banal, seemingly God-given right to the pursuit of "fun" out of the equation, I might even side with the Dr. Blonde.
Here's the difference--in a nutshell:
The Chinese and Indian students are fighting for their lives. The American students are not. The American students are seeking self-actualization (which they understand as "fun"). The Chinese and Indian students are fighting for food, clothing, and shelter--none of these elements being assured in their burgeoning economies.
The late great Douglas Adams summed up human development in a similar, but far more witty manner. I paraphrase. We go three three stages--how do we eat? why do we eat? and when can we have lunch? America is in stage three. China and India are in stage one.
The boy band part was one of my favorite sections of the movie. It demonstrates that perhaps an even more lucrative career than the sciences for American students would be marketing.
Regardless of our technical prowess, our culture and entertainment items are a huge commodity which most countries are eager to consume. A few weeks ago I was listening to some story on NPR about how easily the NBA and Nike have bought themselves the entire Chinese basketball market on the cheap through fairly simple means.
I definitely agree that the US beats other nations in the realm of entertainment. (Go figure, since we value it so highly.)
However, even that may change in the future. It's hard to conceive at the moment...but maybe some day Bollywood will overtake Hollywood. ;)
Post a Comment