[CPlatypus]

Your "authority" is crap. The original article explicitly compared Finland not only with Norway but with individual US states that had similar population and percentage of immigrants. That's about as apples to apples as you can get, considering that US schools are primarily subject to state rather than federal guidelines, and Finland still came out ahead.

By way of supposed refutation, you present a source that is full of strong claims substantiated by little more than the most blatant cherry-picking. The author's "correcting for demography" is no more than throwing out the data he doesn't like. Ignoring the fact that the immigrant factor has already been examined, he pulls tricks like comparing second- and third-generation immigrants in Finland to native Swedes. Notice how the obvious comparison between native Finns and native Swedes isn't made, because it wouldn't support his conclusions. Then he goes on to say "In the case of America, 99% of the population originates from other countries" and suggests that we compare such loosely-defined American immigrants to people in their home countries - without regard for such things as economic differences between the countries. After arbitrarily excluding Asians because they pull the results up, Hispanics because they pull the results down, and undeclareds for no methodologically sound (or even fully explained) reason, he comes up with a highly suspect graph purportedly showing how the US "beats" most of Europe.

Here's the kicker: even after cooking the data that much, Finland still comes out well ahead of the US. No matter how hard he tries, he still can't manage to reverse the original conclusion. In the end, citing that does more to discredit your position than to support it.

[yummyfajitas]

Um, I wasn't disputing the fact that Finland comes out way ahead of everyone else. I would have expected the phrase "...roughly the same margin that Finland outperforms the US..." to be a tipoff.

I was disputing the idea that the US and Norway are somehow equivalent. They aren't. The US does far better than Norway.

The exclusion of Asians, Hispanics and Blacks is not arbitrary - it is done because Finland, the UK, Sweden and the other nations discussed by Sanandaji have very few of those groups. Since there are strong correlations between ethnicity and school performance, this is necessary - otherwise we might confuse the effect of the school system with effects of the student body. He has another blog post where he compares the US to Asian nations and excludes non-Asian ethnicities for the same reason - Singapore and Japan don't have many Whites/Blacks/Hispanics.

The goal of Sanandaji's blog post is to compare educational systems, holding student body constant.

[CPlatypus]

But student body is not held constant, not even ethnically. Even within the "white European" demographic bucket there's huge variation among ethnic groups - most relevantly regarding attitudes toward education itself, teachers, and relative levels of funding or social priority given to either. Treating US whites the same as European whites is wrong on a whole bunch of levels. For one thing, we're not all white. For another, the American population is drawn from specific subsets of the European population, and has experienced different patterns of population change since then (particularly evident wrt Jews with their known unique educational profile). Lastly there's the fact that even if non-whites aren't included in the sample their effects are still felt because many white students still share schools with non-whites, and not a few of those "white" students in fact have mixed heritage.

Of course, treating ethnicity - and particularly just white vs. non-white - as the only variable other than the educational system itself is itself offensive. One might also consider the effects that 300+ years of distinctly US culture and history have had on attitudes toward education, teachers, or the relative social/economic priority accorded to either. Or the effects that wealth distribution within the US or wealth differences between the US and other nations might have. The US student body is simply not the same as the Finnish one, so if Sanandaji really wanted to isolate the effect of the educational system then he'd have to adjust for more than one other variable.

Alternatively, he or you might take note of the fact that the current Finnish results are the result of change to the system while holding demographics relatively constant. What works in Finland might not work in the US for all sorts of reasons, but claiming that it won't work specifically because of ethnic makeup is both intellectually and morally dubious.

[yummyfajitas]

If you have a data set that distinguishes between different flavors of European, or somehow controls for attitudes towards education, I'd love to see it.

In the meantime, I'll control for the factors I have data on, while recognizing that even more of the variation than I can see might be caused by non-school system factors.

...you might take note of the fact that the current Finnish results are the result of change to the system while holding demographics relatively constant.

This is incorrect. Because the Finns don't do standardized tests (according to the article), and because PISA is relatively recent, we don't know how good or bad the Finns did before these changes.

[CPlatypus]

"I'll control for the factors I have data on"

Of course you will, even though - or perhaps because - the intermediate result is far more inflammatory than informative.

"Because the Finns don't do standardized tests"

The fact that they don't do standardized tests doesn't mean it's impossible to know whether they're doing better. They embarked on these reforms because of a perceived problem, and seem quite satisfied with the results. If educators and researchers believe there has been improvement, based on other evidence, then I'm disinclined to second-guess them based on one semi-informed and heavily biased blogger's commentary.

[yummyfajitas]

So your suggestion is to disregard all data without perfect controls? In that case, we have no evidence whatsoever that any nation outperforms any other nation.

The fact that they don't do standardized tests doesn't mean it's impossible to know whether they're doing better.

How can one possibly know this, even in principle?

If you are being intellectually honest, your answer should agree with your principle of ignoring all data unless perfect controls are used.

[CPlatypus]

"How can one possibly know this, even in principle?"

Are you seriously suggesting that standardized tests are the only way to measure school or student performance? What about non-standardized tests showing improvement within the same region or district? What about measuring achievement differences after leaving school? There are plenty of other options besides standardized tests.

In addition to cherry-picking and strawman, you've just added the the excluded middle to your list of fallacies. There are more than two options here, not just standardized tests or mere guesswork. Just because something can't be measured by one yardstick, even if it's the most accurate one (which itself is debatable in this case), doesn't mean other yardsticks won't suffice. Do you really want to turn this into a discussion about intellectual honesty? I'd relish the opportunity to cast your disreputable claims and tactics even further into oblivion.