Mukherjee comments on an Associated Press report that the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee may allocate US$1.3 billion to public schools to teach Chinese language and culture. The AP story noted that 2,400 American high schools would consider teaching Mandarin versus 240 opting for Italian and just 175 would teach Japanese. He cites author Donald DePalma quoting Willy Brandt “If I am selling to you, I speak your language. If I am buying, dann muessen Sie Deutsch sprechen.” But he says that most of China’s 1.3 billion potential consumers may not able to buy what the West is selling, so why bother learning Chinese? While stipulating to China’s emergence in 2050 as the world’s largest economy, he notes that the average, mostly rural Chinese will still earn less than half what an average American, Englishman, or German will makes at their jobs. Thus, Americans taking these Chinese-language course might gain appreciation of Mandarin culture, but not sell many widgets. Mukherjee argues that demographically correct buyers will speak “China English.” He believes that the network effect of so many people speaking some form of English will spill over into other aspects of Chinese life, affecting commerce and the courts in what the linguist in us would characterize as a Sapir-Whorfian influence. Mukherjee’s argument is all a prelude to his contention that spending US$1.3B to teach American kids how to speak Chinese would be a really bad investment. U.S. education is chronically underfunded and, according to Ma Liping’s “Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics,” more than half of American math teachers could use a knowledge tune-up. While we are always in favor of more language education, we are also pragmatists when it comes to economic competitiveness. Here’s our math on governmental knee-jerk reactions to major educational issues:
|
|
