I agree. But the way pollies “magpie” a few points from an OECD PR blurb really makes any public debate they ignite quite worthless. What does it mean when Julie Gillard says, “Australia is below the OECD average in government investment in higher education?”

The other one the AEU uses is “the current UNDERfunding of public schools.” What on earth could that possibly mean? It could mean anything. But it works as it dutifully trotted out in newspaper columns and blogs across the nation.

The US displays the opposite. Americans appear to never look outside the US for ideas. When it comes to things that don’t work well in the US, like health, it’s a pity they don’t look more overseas.

Why are science/engineering graduates seen as something we need to have more of. Nothing at all against them, I am one myself, but it seems to show a remarkable distrust of people’s own choices. Could it be that people know better themselves than the ‘planners’ do for some reason?

I wondered about that too. However, read the captions carefully. One is gross wages (where Australians don’t do well), and one is adjusted for tax (where Australians do do well). My bet is that a big factor that is causing this is what the the top rate of tax is — it isn’t surprising that countries with high rates are to the left on this measure.

Is she implicitly stating that they want to reduce places in those areas, and revive manufacturing and engineering in this country (obviously up to OECD levels)? Given the efforts put in over the past 20 years to reposition Australia for a service economy, having a fewer than average proportion of graduates in science/engineering should be seen as a relatively successful policy outcome.