“So what they’re ignorant of must be that the political will exists and that it just hasn’t happened yet? No? So, in other words, America as a whole, is unwilling to ban the death penalty? If that’s what they’re railing against, it doesn’t even sound like ignorance, let alone ‘monumental ignorance’.”

This is irony at its greatest. This effort to counter the idea that people are ignorant of the US, its cultural variances, and political history and workings is a wonderful evidence of missing the target entirely. I should point out that a depressingly increasing number of Americans, having conceded too much to European socialism, are missing the point as well.

The longer I live abroad the more I am convinced that the gulf of misunderstanding of each other’s (US/non-US) political sentiments is too broad to cross. With accusations slung back and forth, neither side seems to understand exactly what they are arguing against.

As an American, I will say this: the Constitution and its emphasis on limiting the power of the Federal Government is as near a state religion as we will ever have. At the heart of American politics is the sentiment that strong central government is a BAAAAAAAD horrible, ghastly, filthy thing. Any talk of national “political will” falls short at the altar of our preference for limiting Federal power. It is not NOT the answer to anyone’s problems. My one fault of the Bush administration is that they have loosened conservatives grasp on that idea. But, his inflation of Federal power didn’t happen overnight (he just took advantage of it more than his predecessors) and it has been accomplished through collaboration and alliances with those nasty socialist Europeans. Coolidge for President!!

Bopshop: “monumental ignorance the world has of [your] country”? Staggering use of irony. Even if the world’s ignorance of U.S. affairs could, in general, hold a candle to the ignorance at work in the opposite direction, what is your reason for calling this particular example one of “monumental ignorance”? There is a death penalty “in America” while presumably there is not in said railers’ countries so where is the ignorance? Would you agree that are railing because their governments have banned the death penalty on a national level and the U.S. government has not? Again this is true.
So, are you saying they ignorant of the fact that this is impossible in the United States because capital punishment is a state decision? Wait a minute, that’s a function of the constitution and amending the constitution is not really impossible if the political will exists, right?
So what they’re ignorant of must be that the political will exists and that it just hasn’t happened yet? No? So, in other words, America as a whole, is unwilling to ban the death penalty? If that’s what they’re railing against, it doesn’t even sound like ignorance, let alone “monumental ignorance”.

OK, everyone knows that you’re a member of a profession that specializes in making the worse seem the better case, but let’s lose the eyeshade and the sleeve protectors for a bit Bartleby. I think I’m the only one who has used the word “divest”, and I never suggested that I meant it in a narrowly legal sense. Thus there is no equivalence of distortion being perpetrated here by critics of the Yoongsan School Foundation and its Korean and (deplorably) foreign apologists. Yeah, anyone who didn’t land just yesterday knows not only that legally unenforceable MOU are not legally enforcebale but (as you yourself have observed) that actual contracts generally aren’t either in Korea if the Korean side wants to renege on any of its commitments that have become inconvenient, for whatever reason, or if the foreign counterparty declines to perform some new, additional demand that the Korean side neglected to think of before or just wants now, for whatever reason. That hardly makes it “right”, in the sense of behaviourally acceptable, even if in the former case it’s legally defensible (which it is; I’m with Holmes here). And the fact is that the Foundation committed to various things - in particular regarding control of key personnel appointments, financial management and curriculum — in the MOU w/ the BIS upon which it later reneged - hoping/scheming no doubt that the Brit side would acquiesce after having gone so far down the road that it would lose face and seriously inconvenience many of its supporters if it didn’t capitulate to the changed terms demanded by the Koreans at the last minute. It’s called bait and switch. The Foundation induced BIS to invest its time, resources and reputation on a project on the basis of false and fraudulent promises and representations. That swindle isn’t sufficient to sustain a legally enforceable claim for damages - and one could take the position that BIS should have known better - but the Foundation’s conduct is outrageously dishonorable, and blaming the victim, either for trying to navigate the pitfalls of business as usual in Korea in the pursuit of the needs and interests of its constituents or demeaning it with the moral equivalence gambit is despicable.

Those interested in exploring the international school being developed in Songdo (as well as other aspects of Gale International’s massive project) can find out more here.

As in most areas when people use the word “American” to describe something, in this case education, most Americans twinge at the monumental ignorance the world has of our country.

The US education system is radically different than virtually all other coutries in that it is in effect tens of thousands of very indenpendent unique systems, reflecting very local situations and circumstances. It’s similar to when Europe rails about the death penalty “in America”, ignoring the fact that the death penalty is legal on the state level, not the national level, no death penalty in Wisconsin and several other states.

Same goes for education. Except even more so as education is administered at very local levels in m ost states.

anyhow, as an Australian, you may want to peruse this article by one of your countrymen..

http://www.theaustralian.news......83,00.html

I wouldn’t have been too bothered by the ratio for A’s, since few of my students deserved any. It’s the limit on D’s and F’s I had issues with – or rather, the department head. I had to give also a few Z’s – yes, Z – for bad attendance records [but that was a HUFS rule anyway]. In some classes it was so bad that I called the 출석부 the 결석부. Again, something that didn’t amuse the department head…