"Vice Guide to North Korea"

This video was suggested after class today, by one of the students enrolled in the DeCal.



It seems to be a very bizarre place over there.

The term, Viet(Yue/越/월), in Vietnam ... a drive down to Los Angeles...

Correction: Date for Nanyue (Nam Viet Kingdom)  

Last week, I came down to Los Angeles for spring break. On the way down here, through the power of uloop, I had the fortune of speaking with a Vietnamese-American. It was a diverse mix in the car in that there were American-born Korean-Americans, an international college student from Korea, and a second generation Vietnamese-American. The drive is not short and during this drive for a brief moment, we talked about Viet means. We had a native-Korean speaker, who was born and educated in the S. Korea up until college, so we could to some extent translate between English-Korean-Classical Chinese Characters-Vietnamese. Though as the Vietnamese language adopted the Latin or Roman script things made it a little bit more difficult.

Anyways, what I find strange about the word Vietnam is that as the Korean pronounciation of the classical Chinese characters for Vietnam(越南) are similar in pronounciation to at least the English word Vietnam (Weol'nam) -- though on a separate side note and from recent arrivals from Korea, it seems that the dictionary as provided by naver.com (the korean-english and not the korean-sino-korean dictionary), it appears Weol'nam is not used as frequently as Koreans now use the Korean pronounciation of the English word Vietnam (which to me makes no sense). But anyways, under the assumption that the word for Vietnam in Korean, Weol'nam, derives from the same characters as Vietnam, then I find that there is something particular strange about this word.

You see, "nam"(南) means south. For example, in (Sino-)Korean, Nam-Mi(南美) means South America (the continent). But, notice that here Nam is a prefix here and not a suffix. So, it would mean that the term Nam(南) is being used to modify the second -- South America. But, when Nam is used as a suffix, it means "South of." So, I find it strange (perhaps, it's a bit like how Hungary is well, mistakenly, called Hungary), but anyways, I wanted to see what this meant. And, I thought it be of historical interest since I know almost nothing of Chinese history -- particularly after the center of Chinese civilization moved further south to the Yangtze River (further away from the Korean peninsula that is).

Well, Wikipedia gives the etymology of Vietnam to be:

Việt Nam (Vietnamese pronunciation: [vjə̀tnam]) was adopted as the official name of the country by Emperor Gia Long in 1804.[4] It is a variation of "Nam Việt" (南越, Southern Việt), a name used in ancient times.[5] In 1839, Emperor Minh Mạng renamed the country Đại Nam ("Great South").[6] In 1945, the nation's official name was changed back to "Vietnam". The name is also sometimes rendered as "Viet Nam" in English.[7]

So, it does look like the word Vietnam is from the same Classical Chinese characters, but Nam Viet and Viet Nam seem to be more than just a mere variation. Consider that the former means Southern Viet and that the latter means South of Viet. Southern Viet would suggest a link with Viet (?) and South of Viet would suggest that Viet would be a term that had been ascribed to people living to the north of Vietnam and is a name that appears to be given to it by the Chinese. I believe Vietnam (Dai Viet -- which I take to be Great Viet or 大越 since Dai is close to the Sino-Korean word Dae, which also means Great) had to struggle continuously for her independence from the Chinese for most of her history. I believe Northern Vietnam was a part of Chinese kingdoms until the end of the first millenium at which point the Dai Viet emerged. (Though even here, I believe Dai Viet was conquered by the Chinese as late as during the Ming Empire). (The history of Southern Vietnam seems to be more complex as there were people who lived there that practiced Hinduism (which would put it oddly out of place with its neighbors). Anyways, I didn't want to get in to a heated debate in the middle of a car ride, but it had always perked my curiosity and I guess this is what this blog is here for. And, Wikipedia's entries of Vietnam are look surprisingly sparse for the country that is supposed to be the next Japan (no, not the next South Korea (it's unified for one) -- but the next Japan; the country already has a population larger than South Korea and most of Vietnam, unlike South Korea, which (I believe) which has for past two consecutive years had the lowest feritility rate in the world, is young and its population growing fast).

But, the character for Viet (越) seems to be Yue in -- I'm guessing -- Mandarin. On a side note, I had this discussion last year with an ethnic Chinese from Vietnam that said the pitch for Yue and Viet were different -- making it different words (I don't know if it has a different pitch, but it does have the same character. And, if it has the same etymologoical (from Wikipedia):

In ancient times, the northern Han Chinese referred to the peoples to their south collectively as the Yue. Historian Luo Xianglin has suggested that these peoples shared a common ancestry with the Xia Dynasty. There is little evidence, however, that the Yue peoples held any common identity. Historical texts often refer to the Hundred Yue tribes (Chinese: 百越; pinyin: Bǎi Yuè; Cantonese Yale: Baak Yuht; Vietnamese: Bách Việt). The "Treatise of Geography" in Han Shu notes: "In the seven or eight thousand li from Jiaozhi to Kuaiji (modern southern Jiangsu or northern Zhejiang) the Hundred Yue are everywhere, each with their own clans."

But, interestingly, note where Zhejiang province is:

So, it appears that as the above quote says that the term Viet (Yue/越) referred to a lot more than just a single group of people and probably to a region and even a kingdom -- "one of the feudal states within the China area was the kingdom of Yue, located south of Hangzhou Bay; it included what is now Fujian province" (Britannica Online).

Moreover, Britannica gives a definition of Yüeh (Yue/Viet/越) as an

aboriginal people of South China who in the 5th–4th century bce formed a powerful kingdom in present-day Zhejiang and Fujian provinces. The name Vietnam means “south of the Yue,” and some Chinese scholars consider the Vietnamese to be descendants of the Yue.

Also, there seemed to be a kingdom called Nanyue or Nam Viet (南越) that encompassed the northern parts of present day Vietnam and the Cantonese speaking regions of Southern China in 2000 BCE (though I'm not sure at that time what regions actually spoke Cantonese). I mean this is about 4,000 years ago and about eighteen hundred years before China was first unified. Anyways, it does appear that the term Viet was originally given by those not living in Vietnam today (I believe in the first millenium the "Chinese" did a rather poor job of assimilating the local Vietnamese) and, was, perhaps, too different from the origins of the name (Barbara).

Also, there seemed to be kingdom called Nanyue or Nam Viet (南越):

[Nam Viet was an] ancient kingdom occupying much of what is now northern Vietnam and the southern Chinese provinces of Kwangtung and Kwangsi. The kingdom was formed in 207 bce, during the breakup of the Ch’in dynasty (221–206 bce), when the Ch’in governor of Yüeh (now Kwangtung and Kwangsi provinces) declared his territory independent. His son Chao T’o (Trieu Da) expanded the new kingdom southward, incorporating the Red River delta and the area as far south as Da Nang (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Nonetheless, it does seem the Vietnamese had a much harder time from the Chinese than Koreans. And, the term Vietnam suggests that the country is/was outside the fringe of Chinese civilization if it is to the South of Yue. Or, if Vietnam is just a mere variation of Nam Viet than the Han Chinese have come to conquer both culturally and physically a lot of land in the past few millenia. Anyways, I believe the Vietnamese and Chinese(pl) langugaes are very closely related (and I don't mean just in terms of vocabulary or loan words).

So, what's going on in North Korea these days?

Although North Korea's recent currency reform debacle is showing the world how far the DPRK government has fallen, it also seems that at the same time the Do Not Let North Korea Fail at all costs idea I have been writing about up until now may no longer be applicable. Especially as media coverage on the DPRK's food situation seems to be rather sparse -- or at the very least given little attention, my guess is that the United States and South Korea have all, but given up on negotiating with North Korea and are waiting to see what happens when Kim Jong Il dies. And, while China seems to have come through on aid after the implementation of the most recent round of sanctions, these sanctions do seem to be working and I believe the U.S. estimates that arm sales by North Korea have dropped in half. Plus, as there is no longer a lifeline from South Korea as under the previous two South Korean administrations (consider the threat by North Korea to seize South Korean assets in the DPRK), it finally seems the powers that be have all agreed to finally strangle stop subsidizing Kim Jong Il's regime. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but we can get a rough glimpse at how North Koreans may perceive their government by looking at studies that have been coming out ever since the end of the famine and how much control the DPRK government retains over its people.

In particular, consider the study, "Political Attitudes under Repression: Evidence from North Korean Refugees" by Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland (The pdf file is free). This was published just this month and is at the cutting edge of what is known about how North Koreans may feel about their government. I would at the very least read through the introduction and look at the nice graphs.  Even though the study is at the cutting edge of what is currently known, consider that one of the aspects of the study was to see if North Koreans make jokes about the government or Kim Jong Il -- I believe in order to see how much control the government still has over its people. These views had to be extrapolated out of representative samples of North Koreans living outside of the country. This goes to show how little information on North Korea has been available in the past and even with large numbers of North Koreans leaving their country recently, how little is still actually known about North Korea.

Unlike their earlier studies, such as, "Exit Polls: Refugee Assessments of North Korea's transition," this study focused more on changing views of North Koreans' government in the past decade or so (again, it highlights how much more information on North Korea has become available in the aftermath of the famine).

The study tries to address what North Koreans thought were the best paths at social mobility in terms of "getting ahead" or "making money." The study suggests a picture of a government that is widely thought to be corrupt  -- the study shows becoming a government official or a party member as the best way to get ahead and engaging in market, corrupt, or criminal activity as the best way to make money (working hard at assigned task looks to be at zero percent). Also, of note is that the study suggests the vast majority of North Koreans blame failed DPRK policies for their economic plight and, unsurprisingly, zero percent to global economic factors.

However, while the study again showed economic reasons as the primary reason for leaving North Korea, also of note is that in the study's samples 1% cited religious freedom to be their primary motive for leaving. Combining this with their earilier work that show a similarly low figure leaving North Korea primarily due to the assistance of NGOs, I wonder how effective NGOs truly are -- as most are led by religious movements.

So, perhaps, it's a good bet to see if the DPRK will manage to survive another -- revolutionary -- hereditary succession.

[DeCal] Answers to previous assignment, Upcoming Presentations

Group 4

We will be meeting with Group 4 at 7:00pm, March 29th at the Free Speech Movement Cafe. As mentioned in class, due to spring break, we have decided to put off presentations by Groups 1 & 2 for another week. April 4th's lecture will bring us into what has been going on very, very recently in North Korea.

Answers for the in-class assignment (03/09/2010):
Topic: 1945-53 and South Korea (1953-97)

1. What were the 3 factors in the divergence between South and North Korea? In particular, what advantages did South Korea have that North Korea did not. [What factors did they share?]

By far the greatest advantage that South Korea had that North Korea did not was access to a gigantic consumer market that was more than willing to buy up anything South Korea would produce. Additionally, this was assisted by having access to foreign technology, foreign capital, and a superpower willing to both protect and subsidize the development of South Korea's economy.

Both South and North Korea have a legacy of a homogenous people with a strong sense of shared identity. For example, as pointed out with the sudden dip in gold prices in 1997 (as families in South Korea felt it to be a national duty to sell their gold to help the country regain some foreign reserves), the Koreas did not have to worry about a group (until about the 1980s, the Jeolla provinces come to mind here) that felt that they did not have a stake in the government. Koreans felt that if the country as a whole were to become richer, then they too would be better off. This allowed Korea to do things that might not be politically feasible in places such as Indonesia (where a slight reduction in gasoline subsidies sparked riots a couple years ago), such as quadrupling the price of gasoline overnight by fiat in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo. Another example that comes to mind is systematic devaluation (and thus stealing money or "sacrificing" away the money of Korean households as their real purchasing power declines). Domestic consumption was discouraged and the government was able to extract high rates of savings from South Korean households and thereafter direct these savings into invesetment into "strategic" industries. These policies were in the aggregate very positive and saw South Korea take off on a path of sustained economic development (up until 1997 at which point Korean economic development took a different path). On a side note, this is the exact same explanation that is the rationale behind some of the more bizarre North Korean propaganda -- a common theme that (North) Koreans have a shared destiny (this of course, has probably changed somewhat since the famine).

Additionally, traditional Confucian values of education provided a highly educated, cheap labor force (which was unable to organize until the early 1990s and very similar to China's current policy of "official labor unions") with institutions that were only moderately corrupt. The term moderately corrupt is used to indicate that while corruption was (probably) pervasive throughout all levels of the country, even its dicatators were forward looking dictators that wanted to create a more prosperous and wealthy Korea.

And, finally, the most important is the mere presence of U.S. soldiers. When South Korea's geographical location and her neighbors -- the Soviet Union, North Korea, Communist China, and Japan are considered, it becomes clear how much South Korea would have had to invest toin an army/navy/air force that could credibly defend the country (it would have cost a fortune and probably take a ballistic missile program and nuclear weapons -- I imagine). Well, instead, that money went into developing the country further.

We can see many tangents with China's management of her economy with South Korea today [Taiwan's economic development was less about state directed economic growth into strategic industries and national champions, but rather the development of small and medium sized businesses. This is why there we are familiar with large, Korean multinational companies, such as Samsung or Hyundai, while Taiwan's smaller high tech companies do not have brand power that is usually associated with economies of scale and usually make components or chips for larger companies on a contractual basis, such as making chips for AMD or NVIDIA].

2. During the Korean War, from the perspective of those involved, what was gained (or lost) ?

China:

China kept a buffer state between the U.S. soldiers and its boundary. Arguably, the country chose to defend North Korea rather than "unite" China -- by invading Taiwan. It was also a huge propaganda win for the Chinese government as PRC soldiers were able to stop the almighty United States. Nonetheless, the country lost hundreds of thousands of people (I'm guessing more), including Mao Tse Dong's only child.

United States:

This largely depends on what angle you're observing the situation from. But, by and large, the most significant benefit was that there was "no communist dagger" pointed at Japan and the United States too was able to secure a buffer state between U.S. occupied Japan and the "monolithic" Communist bloc. The United States lost about 50,000 soldiers. Nonetheless, the U.S. was left with defending and helping to develop a very poor country with no natural resources. U.S. soldiers have been in South Korea continuously from 1945 to today. However, the true dividends for the U.S. did come, but much much later (As discussed in class, the 1988 Seoul Olympics was probably a larger triumph for the United States than it was for South Korea).

Koreas:

Millions of people died. The country remained divided. And, there was no reconciliation of the fissures that were built up during the Japanese colonial period.

Japan:

[Not really discussed] Probably the biggest benefactor of the war was that Japan was able to re-industrialize by supplying the United States war effort on the Korean Peninsula.

Soviet Union:

[Not sure here] But, I believe the Soviet Union didn't lose anything at all aside from the weaponry it supplied to North Korea and it's jet planes it got to test against U.S. pilots

3. At what point did the South become more prosperous than the North? [Not discussed, but, implicitly implied, at what point did South Korea become seen to be the more "legitimate" Korean state on the peninsula?]

Around 1980 is the point where GDP per capita figures -- an imperfect measure by any means when you have one country just building tanks and another building container ships, steel, etc for export take separate trajectories. But, nonetheless, after 1980, it becomes much more difficult to argue that the North was richer than the South.

I would say that the Summer Olympics of 1988 held in Seoul was the time when South Korea became to seen as the more "legitimate" state. The country recently held free and fair elections in 1987 and emerged as a democracy just in time for the olympics. Not only was the country seen to be much, more prosperous than the North (consider that South Korea had income levels comparable to subsistence economies in subsaharan Africa), but consider the year. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the first world (the US+friends) boycotted the summer olympics held in the Soviet Union in 1980. Then, consider that the second world (the USSR+friends) boycotted the summer olympics of 1984 held in Los Angeles. Only North Korea and Cuba boycotted the summer olympics of 1988 in Seoul, South Korea.

I suggest that it is at this point that all the billions of dollars subsidizing South Korea inally paid off for the United States.

4. What do you think about the fact that South Korea only recently emerged as a country with true democratic institutions? In your opinion does this seem surprising? Why or why not?

I thought it to be surprising that South Korea only recently emerged as a democracy and am even more surprised that this happened at all. South Korea as a Confucian society is a very vertically oriented society with no democratic traditions. Nonetheless, I suspect that unequal development is the probable suspect here as development of the southwestern Jeolla provinces was ignored during both the Japanese colonial period and during the military dictatorships that followed. You can check this by looking at voting patterns, which consistently show upwards of 95% of the people from the Jeolla provinces voting for the same candidate. At the same time, you have large numbers of people in the Southeast (Gyeongsang Provinces) and even Seoul that vote for candidates for the party that has been associated for military dictatorships (Although I mean political parties here, they are, by and large, undeveleoped as in they do not yet run on issues and are more keen to appeal to regionalism or are parties based around a single candidate... not unlike that of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party or Ross Perot's Reform Party --- except it happens not once every hundred years or so, but every five years.

What makes a school great?

Anyways, well, as I mentioned before, I grew up in an unincorporated suburb of Glendale and I went to Crescenta Valley High School for a couple years -- it's a nice public school for the most part as you can see from the standardized scores, it was also a Blue Ribbon School, and I believe the school sends roughly twenty students a year to UC Berkeley. Those from my high school class that have graduated from UC Berkeley all seem to have graduated from Haas and seem to all be doing rather nice at least financially), but anyways, I went to this school for a little more than two years. And there's definitely a small town atmosphere here (though I wonder if this sense of community will remain intact with the rather large and continuous influx of Korean-Americans into this community -- in the past ten years, at least a couple new Korean supermarkets opened up, the bus stands have Korean language advertisements, and there are even Korean newspaper stands at the local Ralphs (like a Safeway, a regular supermarket). The liquor store that's been here for probably a couple generations now sells soju (as I guess the Korean supermarket that opened up next to it couldn't get a liquor license). Anyways, that's something I would not want to get into, but there might be lessons to be taken from neighboring La Canada-Flintridge.

Anyways, I grew up pretty close to a park with a basketball court; my brother and I and our neighbors would often go down there and at times we would run into this bald man who was probably 30 at the time I'm guessing, who just never ever missed a three pointer. We thought he was probably the best basketball player we had ever seen. When I went to high school, he was my history teacher and was also the head coach of the high school basketball team. Another neighbor, who I believe still lives a couple houses down, was this one couple who would pay me and my brother to water their garden for a week each summer as they would take their yearly vacation. But, this was no ordinary task for two pre-teens. We are talking about a Secret Garden here. It was extensive to put it mildly. Anyways, we did well for a few years until one unfortunate summer, where most of his plants, flowers, and grass died. He became my high school counselor at CVHS, ironically, and not by choice either -- it just my happened that my last name began with a letter in between A and G?

And, while even back in 1996-1999 or so, there were still significant Korean miniorities -- perhaps a fifth at that time, it still had this small town feeling. And, this is what I'd like to talk about. You see, I was one of those delinquents as they say in high school. In between periods, you'd most likely find me in the bathroom having a cigarette or hopping over the fence to cut class or something... And, of course, there was the "evil" security guard to avoid. And, of course, there was the sheriff on campus.

But, nonetheless, I remember in my junior year I was doing fairly well academically; I was taking probably all advanced placement courses or honors courses and had largeley recovered from a freshman gpa that rounds to zero.

When I would get caught for doing something I probably shouldn't have done, especially for smoking, I would come up with some pretty ridiculous excuses. But, I never realized what a great dean I had (I can't remember his name) until, well, I got kicked out and as I think back about high school now. Whenever, the sheriff (and this man just got around; one moment he would be walking in the middle of campus and -- way past his bed time -- he'd be breaking parties up in neighboring La Canada-Flintridge) or the security guard or a teacher would send me to the deans' office I would come up with some pretty ridiculous stories.

In particular,

I remember the dean saying, "So, Joe were you smoking in the bathroom again?"

And, I would go off for about five or ten minutes with some ridiculous no... absurd..excuse. In particular, one time I remember saying, "We live in a great country. But, unfortunately the thing about living in a society as great as ours is since everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty that there are times when it's the case that even when you're absolutely sure that somebody did something wrong unless you have definitive proof (like a pack of cigarettes or a lighter), we, unfortunately, have to let these people go. I can't believe I said this, but yes, I said this type of stuff all the time and the crazier thing is actually listened (and probably laughed) and would even comment on things I would say. If I was in a school, in say, Korea, I would've probably gotten beat with a stick until I confessed the truth.

By the way, no, these excuses almost never worked. He suspended me here and there and harshly, especially if it was more severe than smoking cigarettes, but if I think back about it now. He was a great dean and teacher and I doubt that if I grew up in another country I would've come across a dean like this (or teachers like him). I would have literally gotten beat with a stick on an everyday basis probably. But, here's a dean that actually treated with respect as young adults  and there were a lot of other teachers like him too. And, I bet all over the country as well.

Unfortunately for me, and a lot of other students, the dean got promoted in my junior year. And, in his place, was a new guy in a suit -- literally. He would wear a suit and glasses every single day. After two encounters with this new dean, he thought it was a good idea for me to go to continuation school. Though the school offered not a single course that I was taking at the time --- (AP American Literature/AP US History/AP Chemistry/Spanish/Pre-Calculus, etc etc)... Though I didn't go directly to continuation school, when I did get there they said pre-calculus was not offered and that I should take Algebra I. Of course, the teacher there said this fully aware that I didn't need to take Algebra I as most college bound students would either take Algebra I in middle school or skip it entirely, so, naturally, it's a course that wouldn't show up in our high school transcripts. What was the point of me taking a class that I should've taken in middle school? It didn't look like I was college bound. I dropped out in a week

(I did take all those courses again at the junior collge level), but I mean I'm not writing this to point out the dean in the suit, but here to point out the dean, who would listen to a kid give him a speech about the way society is after he pretty much got caught smoking a cigarette. And, I wonder if this is something that is unique to America's school system and suppose if this is what makes America's schools great.

[DeCal] Response Paper due March 30th

Questions to answer in response to Group 1's presentation:

How did north korea’s ideology change? (hint: constitution)

How is juche seen to be illegitimate (by those living in north korea)   What were the reasons and factors driving this?

How did the DPRK army develop their strategy (1948 vs 1990s)?

1 page, double spaced, times new roman, font 12

staple your in-class notes to it. 

Group 1 is omitted from this assignment. 

Japanese Tourists, California's Higher Education System, & Me

As a result of recent state budget cuts, tuition increases, and proposed increases in the ratio of out-of-state and international students -- who pay higher fees, many in California feel that access to higher education in California is being threatened. Have no fear though, for you see, today, as I was walking through campus I came across two Japanese tourists. They asked me where they can eat. Now, coming across Japanese tourists is not something new, but hey, I came across them not at Disneyland, but in front of Bancroft Library - right smack in the middle of campus. (I recommended "GBC" or Golden Bear Cafe). As I was headed in that general direction, I walked them there. Perhaps, I should've walked them to Northside? Pat Brown's or even the Free Speech Movement Cafe? Anyways...

For one thing, they said they were here sightseeing and that they were students from a university west of Tokyo, but they were sightseeing not Disneyland, but UC Berkeley. I mean you see people take pictures at Berkeley all the time, but I always presumed it was because their son or daughter is studying here and they were very proud that their child has come to study at one of the more well recognized universities in the world. But, would you choose to spend money to visit UC Berkeley? They were second year undergraduate students majoring  in linguistics. Yesterday they were in San Francisco they said and tomorrow they will head down to Los Angeles (a better bet in my opinion). I imagine that while it's spring break here, well technically starting tomorrow morning for me, that it is probably the equivalent of summer break over in Japan -- I believe the school year in Japan starts in the spring.

But anyways, the interesting question was, why on earth would Japanese tourists visit UC Berkeley? When I visited Japan, some of the things I did was relax at an outdoor sauna (spa?) or a natural springs located in some mountains somewhere between Osaka and Kyoto and even watching Last Samurai (the movie is still one of my all time favorites). By the way, I feel I spend more time on blogger than on facebook; I should message my old Japanese friend. Other activities included going to Osaka and visiting my friend's university in Kyoto and speaking with an old Japanese man on the J-Line, who said that it was strange that I looked Korean, but I spoke English. Anyways, visiting my friend's university was nice in that I got to see where he studied and how it was (tranquil and peaceful are the adjectives that come to mind here), but if I had planned the trip I definitely would not have placed visiting a Japanese university at the top or anywhere on the list. 

And, I guess this is something that those demonstrating against letting in a higher ratio of international and out-of-state students seem to forget. One of the greatest assets that California has built up by investing so heavily -- perhaps even excessively -- in its higher education system are its internationally recognizable public institutions of higher learning. Consider the size of the UC library (second largest in the world?), there's hydrogen, helium, oxyen, and, of course, Californium, and Berkelium), etc etc. But, perhaps, it's about time to cash in on this. If there are Japanese tourists that willingly come to visit UC Berkeley, then imagine the number of students that would want to study here (though the percentage of alumni that give back seems to be rather tiny). Of course, there's externalities aside from just mere income transfers... Knowledge spillovers, economies of scale come to mind here...

Anyways, the second thing that this brought up, is well, brand names aren't build up by advertising on television (maybe aside from those television advertisements in between college football). They are built after decades and decades of academic accomplishment and, perhaps, an open university that accepts top foreign students. Now, consider the oftenly cited claim of the superiority of Korea's or East Asia's secondary education system. For example, "Oh, the math and science that undergrads learn in America is taught at secondary school." But, I doubt Korea's secondary education system is superior to the United States. Yes, it has been shown (Hanushek and Kimko, in a 2001 paper published in the Journal of American Economic Review ) that higher test scores in science and math translate into higher rates of economic growth -- but, this is through 1990. I believe it won't hold against equally developed economies. Consider Japan and the U.S. post-1995 or so. Would you rather have an innovation based economy or one that survives by making manufacturing electronics (commodities) primarily on the basis of cheap labor (China) or even technology (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) or components for, let's say, Apple. But, anyways, what is not fostered in Korea's secondary schools or its school systems (or Japan's) is the ability to think critically and ask questions. (Disclaimer: By the way, my senior honors thesis is turning out to be on international student flows in higher education, but anyways:)

The United States recent focus on standardized test scores is something I wish the country would stay away from (And, no, I've always done fine on standardized tests), but the Korean or Japanese education system is not something that I believe we should try to emulate. For one thing, consider, what would happen to a secondary school student that constantly challenges a teacher's authority not because he doesn't want to study, but because he questions whether the teacher is right or why it's important to learn exactly what he's learning. That student would either get kicked out of the system -- for questioning the the authority of the teacher and have no chance of getting back in or be forced to take the path of "rote memorization, regurgitating formulas or facts or equations, so that he can score as high as possible on a standardized test." And, well, for all of Korea's higher standardized test scores, they can't win a Nobel Prize (no, Kim Dae Jung does not count).  Or, of course, he would come to the United States, if he had the money. In the U.S., well, conformance is -- upto a certain degree -- not cool. When I was in Seoul, I never once visited Seoul National Universitiy except to stop near the campus for a job interview (at a private English Academy -- that I eventually turned down). For example, I always hear about how Korean students already learned how to do Calculus or Chemistry or something in high school. But, you see, that's when the learning stops. In the United States, the educational system is setup so that you will continually be learning for the rest of your life (Why ask Why?).

In Korea, the system is setup so that the vast majority of "learning" is in high school and learning at the undergraduate level is a joke (I have many, many anecdotal stories here and there are, of course, many empirical studies here done as well, and, of course, there's the fact that South Korea decided to adopt the U.S.' liberal education system (two years of general education before all else). Also, consider what the mandatory military draft does to Korea's undergraduate education system. But one story that comes to mind is an English conversational partner I had that scored above the 99.97% percentile or so on the KSAT and then flunked out of Seoul National University for playing too much Starcraft -- he of course, did end up graduating and is probably making a lot of money now at one of the top multinational firms in Korea. I thought him to be smart, but what if he had grown up in the U.S.? Maybe he would've discovered a cure for cancer... Or not...