Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This goes on for pages and pages. I chose to focus on the global rankings for literacy, numeracy and problem solving skills by country. I brought in some of the supplemental information from the report where a country was discussed and explained. I did not go into the detailed breakdown because of diminishing returns, though if some one else wants to follow up, it might be useful. Page numbers are inline explaining where to find information. --LauraHale (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, the stuff I e-mailed to scoop dealt with CFPB article that has been published. The report is referenced as a source in the article, and the inline comments are to the page numbers in that report. --LauraHale (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
There were two different problems with the removed passage,
The survey found that foundation skills and overall literacy are strongly tied to educational attainment. The more education someone from Japan has, the stronger their skill set. In Australia, there is a very big gap between those who did not finish high school and those who earned a university degree.
The part about Australia I didn't find supported; the only mention I found of Australia in that regard was, iirc, its inclusion in a long list of countries, including Japan, that didn't have as large a gap as the US and Canada. As for the earlier part, the report's overall conclusions re correlation between education and proficiency were, as best I understood them, that although there was a good correlation of this sort in any given country, there was a "surprising" (I think that was the exact word) disparity between countries. I didn't see much in the way of specifics, but they did have Figure 0.4 one graph comparing Italy and Japan, showing that Japanese high school graduates were as literate as Italian university graduates. So the material would seem to need a few words inserted (eg, "strongly tied to" -> "strongly tied for any given country to"), after which it would be technically true but rather missing the most interesting point. Since the game was clearly shifting into authorship territory, I chose to remove the entire passage. A revised passage insertion could of course be submitted post-publish.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
There were two different problems with the removed passage,
The survey found that foundation skills and overall literacy are strongly tied to educational attainment. The more education someone from Japan has, the stronger their skill set. In Australia, there is a very big gap between those who did not finish high school and those who earned a university degree.
The part about Australia I didn't find supported; the only mention I found of Australia in that regard was, iirc, its inclusion in a long list of countries, including Japan, that didn't have as large a gap as the US and Canada. As for the earlier part, the report's overall conclusions re correlation between education and proficiency were, as best I understood them, that although there was a good correlation of this sort in any given country, there was a "surprising" (I think that was the exact word) disparity between countries. I didn't see much in the way of specifics, but they did have Figure 0.4 one graph comparing Italy and Japan, showing that Japanese high school graduates were as literate as Italian university graduates. So the material would seem to need a few words inserted (eg, "strongly tied to" -> "strongly tied for any given country to"), after which it would be technically true but rather missing the most interesting point. Since the game was clearly shifting into authorship territory, I chose to remove the entire passage. A revised passage insertion could of course be submitted post-publish.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
