New York Times columnist David Brooks writes, “the skills slowdown is the biggest issue facing the country.” Brooks weighs the consequences of Americans’ slowing or declining educational accomplishment, especially high school graduation. Brooks’s policy prescription is clear: “Boosting educational attainment at the bottom is more promising than trying to reorganize the global economy.”
Brooks’s column resonated with me because, in France, there’s a terminal examination marking the end of secondary education (and opening the doors to higher education). This is the celebrated and storied baccalauréat, and the results for 2008 came out recently.
Among French students generally, the pass rate on the baccalauréat for 2008 is 83.3%. There are different sections of the baccalauréat, with slightly different pass rates. For the baccalauréat général, which leads to university studies, the rate is 87.8%. So there’s very little selection or “holdback” at the end of secondary education. But for the baccalauréat technologique, the pass rate is 80.2%, and for the baccalauréat professionnel, an explicitly vocational variant of the exam, the pass rate is 76.6%, in other words nearly 1 student in 4 fails. What becomes of these students: are they simply held back for another year, or do they drop out? And is this number low, or are other sections graded more leniently, on the assumption that graduates will have the possibility to catch up when they begin higher education?
The French education ministry loves numbers, and some of the numbers that involve educational attainment are compelling, especially when put in historical perspective. For example, when viewed in light of high school enrollment, the 83.3% baccalauréat pass rate demonstrates that 63.4% of an age cohort now graduates from high school. Ten years ago, this proportion was basically unchanged, at 62.6%. But 20 years ago, it was only 32.6%. In a generation, France has nearly doubled educational attainment, measured by high school graduation. Today, 34.4% of an age cohort passes the baccalauréat général, with most graduates continuing to higher education.
Ireland organized a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in June, and the Irish people voted “no”.
I support(ed) the Lisbon Treaty. So the Irish vote disappointed me. At the time, European commentators rebuked the Irish and even entertained Europe-sans-Ireland hypotheticals. Maybe I didn’t look hard enough, but I didn’t read a single column supporting the Irish vote.
In addition to discussing the post-referendum impasse and ways to get out of it—with or without the Lisbon Treaty—we should encourage broad public discussion of the referendum process itself:
• Why hold a referendum at all? Unless there’s a compelling reason, why depart from the customary route for approving a treaty (which is probably a parliamentary vote but almost certainly is not a referendum)?
• Level up, or level down? Shouldn’t all EU member states be called on to approve constitutional or organizational treaties is the same way: either by referendum or by parliamentary vote?
• If there’s a referendum, a “no” vote is possible and legitimate. I’d like to hear EU spokespeople acknowledge this more often. When they excoriate the consequences of a “no” vote, I’m concerned that EU officials reinforce views that they are, fundamentally, anti-democratic technocrats (because they view the issues presented as technical, not as political).
• If all EU members held a referendum, why not hold the vote everywhere on the same day?
• If a national constitution arguably requires a referendum, why not amend the national constitution to carve out an exception for EU treaties?
• Can a referendum seriously be put forth as a more democratic means of approval? Does a popular vote of 50% plus one really express a majority? If there is a compelling case for a referendum, wouldn’t the result be still more compelling if supported by a supermajority vote (of at least 60% or 2/3 of voters)?
• Does it make sense to ask the Irish vote again? Why would they vote differently? A poll of 1006 Irish adults done between 21 and 23 July revealed that 71% would vote “no” if asked to vote a second time. That’s a compelling majority.
There’s a need for a plain English guide or resource on intellectual property for people (who aren’t intellectual property lawyers) in industry, working on the supply chain, procurement, operations, engineering, or quality control. People whose jobs aren’t creative in an artistic sense, but who certainly do use creativity in their work lives.
This need is all the more compelling when operations are far-flung. Sourcing and supply decisions routinely are being made across borders, with decision-makers dealing in countries where they don’t speak the language and don’t knows the legal culture.
Here are some recurring issues:
• Sourcing branded products offered in different territories at different prices
• Whether a product subject to patent in the country of its manufacture is subject to protection in another country
• Whether a trademarked product put on the market in one country can be imported to another country
• Whether a product subject to copyright protection in one country can be imported and resold in another country, where it is not currently being sold
• Whether a single trademark, well-known among buyers, can be used to identify two, different products, according to country of sale
• As a patent nears the end of its term, what preparatory steps, if any, can a manufacturer or distributor take to launch a competing product
Intellectual property specialists will spot the issues and possible answers. This isn’t a problem. But what’s missing is a plain-language guidance on these issues, for non-specialists.
The European Union has a motto: unity in diversity. Variants of this motto make good springboards for discussion when introducing newcomers to Europe.
1. Physical diversity: The European Union is made up of many members; some are big, and others are small. Size, of course, can be measured in several ways. It’s helpful to compare geography, population, GNP or average income.
2. Linguistic diversity: Many languages are spoken in Europe. Languages vary among countries, and also within countries.
3. Religious diversity: Religious affiliation and practice vary throughout Europe. Religious freedom and religious pluralism stand out.
Geography speaks volumes when discussion turns to Europe. Here are some geographically inspired discussion points when introducing newcomers to the European Union:
1. Dividing lines: Eastern Europe and Western Europe: Ireland and Estonia feel very different, as do Slovakia and Austria. Divisions from the cold war continue to the present in various forms and to varying degrees.
2. Dividing lines: Northern Europe and Southern Europe. It’s stimulating to look at all the ways in which countries differ between northern and southern Europe. Talking about the north-south division paves the way for discussion on regions within Europe, such as Scandinavia and the Mediterranean.
3. The boundaries of Europe: where does Europe begin and end? This opens the floor to discussion about far-flung extremities of EU member states: what’s with the Azores? Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Reunion Island? Greenland? Why aren’t Switzerland and Norway EU members? Do Russia or Turkey belong in Europe, and what does that belonging mean?