Is Typing a Necessary Skill? 1065
cloudwilliam asks: "The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article on how many schools have stopped teaching touch-typing as a necessary office skill and are now often saying that basic computer skills are more important. I'd agree with the latter, but what about typing? I learned to type on an IBM Selectric II (and still own one, as a matter of fact) in the mid-1980s, and the last time I was tested, touch-typed at around 60 wpm. Is this an obsolete skill? With handwriting and voice recognition technologies, is using a QWERTY keyboard with nine out of ten fingers something worth knowing anymore?"
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Vastly important (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on the interface that we use... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps having a background as an auctioneer would finally be useful for something.
Can't we teach both? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask someone who can't type (Score:5, Insightful)
60 WPM isn't necessary. 25 would be better than hunt-and-peck.
What's the best computer input device? (Score:2, Insightful)
Knowing how to type means knowing how to input computer information faster: whether it is programming, word processing, or slashdotting.
For at least the next decade or so, touch-typing will be a critical skill for all information workers. That's just common sense, right?
Yes, if for no other reason than (Score:3, Insightful)
Faster (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to know what crackpot thinks that you can be anywhere near good at what schools usually think of as "computer skills" (read: word processing, web design, Excel, Powerpoint, email, internet) without being able to type at a half-decent rate.
A necessary skill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh... Last I checked, it's the year 2004 and we haven't stopped using keyboards. How could typing, in the furthest stretch of the imagination, be an "obsolete skill?" Let's ask this question again in a decade from now when people might actually stop using keyboards. Unless I'm horribly misinformed, voice recognition is nowhere near popular and just about 99% of the population is still using the QWERTY layout.
You still need to touch type (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't think of many skills more basic than touch typing, especially since people communicate more via email and instant messaging and less in person and on the phone. I don't think voice recognition is there yet.
Next they'll be saying that you don't need to know how to add in order to do calculus!
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. Handwriting and voice recognition are not developped well enough to replace typing. But being able to type and being able to touch type the 10 finger way are two diffrent things to most people.
I am a designer/developer/programmer and I cannot touch type with all 10 fingers, mostly use 4 or 5.
In general, yes, formally, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Thus, while I don't type the "normal" way, I'd say I type almost as good as most typists, anyway. So, while I do believe it helps to know how to type in some way, shape, or form, I don't think it has to be with the standard model. Whatever way works for you.
Also, just because I type this way doesn't mean that I use poor grammar on IMs, despite the stereotype. I'm a grammar nazi at times and my whole body cringes anytime I hear "words" like "lol" "ic" or "omfgrolflmao!!!!11111111"
absolutly needed (Score:1, Insightful)
Good typing skills = less RSI (Score:5, Insightful)
It also means less time waiting for your hands to catch up with your mind, and so gets out of the way of the creative process.
Re:Vastly important (Score:3, Insightful)
Expected (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, during the hiring process, the question "do you type" is probably not asked very often. It is such a key skill that it has moved beyond being a nice thing to know, to being expected if you are to ever work in any type of office setting.
It is a very useful skill. (Score:4, Insightful)
The subtle benefit of knowing how to type properly is that you can actually type in complete sentences, and not come accross as being retarded in an e-mail or instant message conversation. You will still make typos and spelling mistakes (as I am sure I have in this post), but the post is in recognizable english.
when u dont use sentences nd use lots of abbreviations but not punctuation it tends to b noticd
END COMMUNICATION
Want to learn how to type? (Score:2, Insightful)
High School (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I found the class incredibly boring as I've been around computers for as long as I can remember (there was one in the house before I was born), so I didn't really get taught anything new. I guess that's why I was able to skip the class fairly often and still get a 97..
Re:typing is absolutely necessary (Score:1, Insightful)
A lot of folks see posts like yours and think (consciously or unconsciously) "sloppy typer = sloppy thinker".
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:2, Insightful)
And I swear I hate those IMer's who type in shorthand. That's only appropriate for phone text messages. Just what the hell is "prolly" supposed to be anyway? (I know what it stands for, it just's a rhetorical question...)
typing is still required (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of jobs like programming where high computer skills are obviously required. Good programming requires you to be able to input code at fast speeds and accurately so that the code runs without error. Unless you work for Slashdot, producing buggy code that took you all day to input won't get you far in the business world.
Re:10 years on the net (Score:5, Insightful)
People who are good and very experienced at the index-fingers method often say "I can type 40wpm easy" (or in your case, 60wpm), as though that's incredibly fast.
But computing professionals who touch-type can hit 110-130wpm (I get 110-120 on a good day). That's about twice as fast. When you're trying to hit a deadline, especially as a writer, it's a big deal to be able to type twice as fast, and that much closer to the speed of your thoughts, not to mention the fact that if you have to type for long periods of time, your accuracy won't suffer as much and your hands/arms won't get as tired if you touch-type, because there's less movement and fewer large muscles involved.
There's also the matter of keystrokes, something that most people aren't as familiar with. The number of keystrokes per minute is at least as important for a hardcore computer user (keystroke tests use additional keys like ctrl, alt, shift, Fn, etc. and also test for number and punctuation skill). The ability to perform ctrl, alt, or Fn keystrokes in the midst of a stream of text typing without pausing and without having to look at the keyboard provides an additional serious speed increase in real-world computer use.
And don't underestimate the drag of having to look at the keyboard, even a little. I can fill a spreadsheet at 110-120wpm, staring at a sheet of paper full of numbers the entire time, using tab and arrow keys for navigation, no pauses needed, just a continuous flow of keywork. I never once have to look at the screen and because I touch type, I know the minute I have made a typing error and can backspace and fix it, all without looking. I would guess that it would take you more than twice as long to enter a page full of numbers and formulae into a spreadsheet application, even if your measured typing speed is half of mine.
Re:It depends on what you mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Just because you can't do it?
I use to be a 2 finger typist for the longest time as well and could easily outpace anyone in my 8th grade typing class (cripes thats like 2 lifetimes ago).
Yeah, lots of typos, but thats where you learn the 3 finger method -- your index finger takes over and knows to instinctively find the backspace.
If it weren't for things such as painful arthritis in my right wrist and the fact that I got sick of not being able to type in the dark -- because this style of typing requires you to look at the keyboard quite a bit -- I would still be using this method myself. Luckily, now I can type in the dark, not worry so much about my hands because I'm using proper keyboarding methods and I can stare directy at my boss pretending to listen to him while finishing up posts like this one.
80WPM ain't nothing...it use to mean something on standard typewritters where technique and making certain that you had a specific flow to ensure that keys didn't get jammed (well, before the uniball)...2 fingers can easily do that if you are use to it....
60wpm? (Score:3, Insightful)
I learned on an IBM Selectric (original model), with no letters on the keys. Ugh. Worked, though.
Necessary for WHAT? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have anything against formal instruction, and I know that typing "right" will result in increased performance. But I'm sceptical that the amount of increase will matter much. The practical difference between 5 wpm and 40 wpm, is far greater than the practical difference between 40 wpm and 80 wpm. IMHO there are better things to spend time developing. [Agenda mode on] Teach 'em Python instead.
Re:Vastly important (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Can you get around with less than 40 wpm? Yes, but you will be far less productive than someone who can type faster. This even applies when programming. I find that having the ability to type quickly allows me to get my thoughts into code quickly which contributes to shorter development times.
In regards to the main post, I find it a crime to exchange a definable typing skill with a nebulous "general computer knowledge". What exactly does this mean? Which programs will they be taught to use? How in depth will this training go? Is it teaching problem solving or just making them "comfortable" with computers (as if this is a problem for kids)?
Typing is measurable and very beneficial in life, especially in this age where computers are everywhere. Even when we get good voice recognition, having a strong typing skill will still be critical in those fields where precision of typed communication is essential (use of scientific/medical terms, programming, text formatting, etc.).
As an aside, I see this as just another step in the downward spiral known as public education in America. They are exchanging definable, testable education in the basics (spelling, grammar, math, science, now typing) for more theoretical concepts. The problem is that children are not ready for these creative concepts until they have mastered the basics, but we skip past the basics (the multiplication table, for example) and effectively throw the kids into the deep end before they really know how to swim. It is no wonder that our education is failing our kids.
Sorry about going into ranting mode, but the advent of "creative" spelling and "creative" math are bogus concepts that are basically creating stupid kids (politically incorrect, I know). Keep the calculators and computers out of the classroom until junior high or high school or when the students have proven that they have the basics of math and communication (written and verbal) down. Then we can start the process of expanding their horizons. It is like the old adage: learn all of the rules first and then you can break them.
It's Implied (Score:2, Insightful)
And of course, this is all on top of the fact that students still have to write papers and the like, which are generally typed. Again, more learning through necessity. We don't always have to *officially* teach things. Sometimes, they're learned because they must be.
-G
absolutely essential (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuttles
Re:A necessary skill? (Score:3, Insightful)
I also do not see voice recognition ever replacing the keyboard. When I think about trying to do my day to day job without a keyboard, it very quickly becomes impossible (I program for a living). This is the case not just for programmers but anyone who is particular about spelling or dealing with words that are rare or easily confused (think scientific or medical terms) or when special characters are required. Voice recognition will help -- especially when dictating a slashdot post -- but there will always be a place for the keyboard. If this does ever change, it will not be for a long, long time.
Then again, I could be wrong...
Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say students have 2 hours a week of mandatory computing classes, It would be better spent teaching them how to learn to use a computer on their own, or how to research things, how to figure stuff out, how to have fun and otherwise get the most out of a computer so they'll want to learn more, rather than forcing them to pound on keys.
If high speed typing is so damn important the school boards should switch to Dvorak and we all know it.
Besides most jobs really require very little computer use, even good jobs and seldom do they require touch typing. Only typists, dictators and secretaries would truly benefit from spending hours learning that over say learning how a computer works.
And as
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I was tested, I was at around 105 wpm with 99% accuracy. That's just a byproduct of using computers day in and day out for years though, and not a result of any typing class. I gradually developed my own touch typing system, I guess.
I believe that schools are phasing this out not because touch typing is not a necessary skill but because most of the students can already type better than the teachers. I remember taking a required typing class 11 years ago and just being bored out of my mind, because I could already type at more than 90 wpm. (This was in sixth grade.) I would finish the daily assignment in three or four mintues and then screw around with the computer the rest of the period. I'm guessing that since then, the number of kids screwing around has increased exponentially and schools finally realized the class wasn't worth teaching any more.
Re:Vastly important (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah... but as a touch typist, when I program, I'm not looking at the keyboard. I'm looking at what I type and the stuff around it. So instead of imagining what I want to type, then looking down at the keyboard and typing that, then looking up and thinking some more, I can literally spend all day typing without looking at the keyboard or stopping except to rest. In this mode, my ideas go from my head to the screen, while I'm absorbing whatever else information from the screen that I do while thinking.
When my mind is completely disengaged from the mechanics of getting the characters I want on the screen (i.e. I'm not looking at the keyboard at all and am just letting my thoughts flow from my head to the screen), I can really flow.
I guess this is where I differ from other folks. I don't necessarily like to use the mouse, and in fact, I use keyboard shortcuts a lot. To switch to the mouse, I have to disengage myself from thinking and hunt for the mouse. It's pretty astounding just how much time the mouse can take to use during the day. Of course, there are lots of things the mouse is very good at, so it speeds up lots of tasks so eventually, I think it's better to have a mouse than not. But I think the combination of using a single mode of input (keyboard) and only switching to the mouse when you'd really save time (not while programming hardly ever) is more productive (at least for me).
I think the folks who really thing speed matters are those who interrupt their thought processes to look down at the keyboard to type. In those cases, they have to make up for all the lost time thinking/analyzing while they are typing and jarring their thought processes so they can go back to looking and thinking about what they are doing. In those cases, speed is essential so you can burst the typing to get it out of the way. Most touch typist programmers don't need to type fast because they don't make many mistakes and they are thinking about what they are doing while they type instead of between typing microbursts.
Re:typing is absolutely necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the interaction between a person and a computer as an information processing system, analogous to a PC. In building an optimized system, one must consider the task and the likely bottlenecks. In building a gaming PC, for instance, disk speed and even CPU speed are often less important than the speed of the graphics card.
When a person types on a computer, the bottleneck in accomplishing most tasks is not the bandwidth through the keyboard (typing speed) but the latency introduced by other elements of the system. Specifically, the speed of the user's reading comprehension and the speed of the user to make decisions and mentally transform ideas and concepts into text dominate typing IO for most tasks. The tasks where typing speed dominates, like rote transcription, involve very little need for comprehension, decision making, or complex thought - certainly much less than composing an email or a complex report.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Re:Vastly important (Score:5, Insightful)
I write plenty of emails. Hell I'm writing THIS comment, and I never learned to "type". Can you read the words on this screen?
I guess in general, it depends upon context (as most things do). For developers, typing is not important whatsoever despite being plopped down at a keyboard all day to do one's job. Being an effective software developer is about designing good software. How fast you can type code has absolutely no relation that I can possibly think of to effective coding because good code is generally code that was well though out and designed prior to "typing" the first line. Typing faster without thinking about the design just means you make design mistakes all that much sooner. Furthermore, the keystrokes in a typical program usually resembles nothing like prose, so learning to type probably doesn't help much. I'm a developer. I'm considered a very good developer. But I never learned to type. Neither have most developers I know.
But for bosses? Ahhh... I dunno. None of my bosses could ever type and they seemed pretty effective. Don't know how they would have gotten where they were if they weren't.
These aren't the good ol' days where bosses dictate messages to a secretary who can type as fast as the boss could speek. And furthermore, even in the good ol'days speech went to "shorthand" usually before it went to the typewriter, so I think it's debatable how important it has been for a much longer time than the current "computer" era. Certainly more so, but I wouldn't say more so. Even with secretaries, organization skills are more important than typing skills. Being good or fast is just icing on the cake and I would think it has been since the very beginning.
IRC #trivia (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately capitalization is not required in these games, which is why you're probably seeing a bunch of people bragging about their 110 wpm typing skills with a complete inability to capitalize a sentence properly.
You're all "haves". (Score:5, Insightful)
I touch-type in two different systems; my SO hunts and pecks at amazing speed. Both of us are the product of using computers for over 20 years (and, probably more importantly, MUDs and IM for over 10).
Should young kids start being introduced to basic keyboard skills in school? Absolutely! We don't need to mass-produce 60-WPM touch-typists, but we owe it to the kids to teach the skills they need to effectively use computers.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some online typing tests (Score:5, Insightful)
This of course is complete BS in a modern word processor. I frequently use not only the backspace key, but things like word-left and the end key to correct my mistakes in a fraction of the time it would take to backspace all the way back and fix it.
A modern typing test should really do a few things:
a) measure mistakes after the entire text is typed. Would work even better with a count-up clock and a "Done" button than with a count-down clock like typingtest has.
b) allow you to use the full range of editing keys in , including things like autocorrect and autocomplete (even when they autocomplete something wrong). Of course this is highly impractical unless the typing test is actually built into the word processor, but thats about the only way to get accurate real-world results using that particular program.
Until those two conditions are met, typing tests of this sort are pretty much only measuring how fast you can type on a really really fast typewriter.
Microsoft Already Ahead of the Game (Score:2, Insightful)
easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the definition of RHETORICAL, yes. However, as I did not quote your entire remark, I included the explanation of "prolly" for those who might not have been following the thread closely.
In other words, my intention was politeness, which you interpreted as lack of attention.
Re:I Beg to Differ (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a shame. If you'd stuck to the end of the course, you might be able to type 80 WPM today, which can be very useful.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of my typing experience at that age was from MUDding, playing old adventure games and programming. I could type very well when I took my required typing class also (except it was taught on typewriters, not computers). Most kids now have computer experience, but it's with "iming thir h0mies n talkn 2 chix". Games now rarely require typing even when on a PC, and most kids probably play games on consoles anyway. Being able to type like that even at 200 WPM won't help you in a job, most likely.
Re:Typing IS a necessary computer skill (Score:4, Insightful)
I type over 100 wpm (just barely over, but over) without ever taking a typing course. How did I learn? IMs. Not everyone who uses IMs speaks in that sort of shorthand. Many, many people I know utterly disdain people who type like that, and no one I know actually encourages it.
And, even if someone does type like you are saying they do, it is absolutely true that the skill to type quickly that way will be easily adaptable to typing with proper spelling and grammar. Typing is the skill of being able to make your hands press the letters that are in your head, and that is the same whether you spell things correctly or incorrectly. You can reasonably allege that IMs are ruining kids' spelling, but not that they are ruining their typing skills.
Is it really Dvorak? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:typing is absolutely necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Spelling & Grammar (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care if they get taught how to type, provided they get taught how to spell and the correct use of grammar.
Re:YES. End of story. (Score:3, Insightful)
Such as myself, I've used computers since I was 4, learnt touch-typing at school, then played a LOT of Quake, and did a lot of stuff that only required one hand on the keyboard. So as as result, my pinkies are dedicated entirely to Ctrl-Alt, Shift and arrow keys, with all letters handled by my remaining three fingers.
As a result, my pinkies are noticably weaker than my other fingers, to the point where it feels really bizarre using them to push on anything
I also hold pens and chopsticks differently to everyone else, but play the piano normally. Details I'm sure you were all DYING to hear.
Re:Some online typing tests (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose that makes sense; though for the purposes of teaching typing, insisting on high accuracy may still be useful; in practice a student that types more slowly, but with 100% accuracy, is going to be the better typist in the long run than one that types a little faster and uses the backspace key occasionally--my experience with these kinds of physical skills is that speeding up is easy, once you know how to do something with complete accuracy, but unlearning mistakes can be very hard. So both students will eventually reach a high speed, but the originally faster one may never unlearn their habit of missing "p"'s (or whatever).
Hell with typing, teach spelling! (Score:3, Insightful)
Typing quickly is the least of their problems.
High School typing class (Score:5, Insightful)
The only class that I ever learned anything from, and still use the skills from, is my high school typing class.
reasons for touch typing more than selfless (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to hunt and peck type... and a peer used to scream at me and sometimes eject me from my seat and assume the typing responsibility, even though he was the manager, and I was the coder! I used to deeply resent his brusque behavior, but realized (I highly respected this man) I was slowing HIM down.
If you don't touch type, and you work in a group, or on a team, your slow typing does more than slow you down. It slows your entire team down! This is a skill so easy to learn it is almost disrespectful to those with whom you work to not learn it.
Touch typing is one of the most valuable skills I recommend to people. Heck, it doesn't have to be anything formal, just suck it up for a week, and refuse to enter ANYTHING on the keyboard without doing it by touch. (For the record, this is how I learned..., and I drove people around me absolutely mad for that week..., but to this day, I get compliments on my typing speed. (Especially handy for editors like "vi"))
Re:wow (Score:3, Insightful)
That is my point. Unless you are transcribing or taking dictation, typing is only a small part of composition time. It is not so important a skill that you must master 100wpm simply to survive.
And as for my "measured" speed, I imagine it's higher than that, but the last time I could be bothered to test myself (years ago), it was around 40-50 wpm.
If you want some measure of my speed, this entire post took me about a minute to type. Zero errors.
Re:Some online typing tests (Score:3, Insightful)
that's not the point of touchtyping (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And WPM is any better? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, you'll be faster typing "I do not know too much about this." than "My knowledge of this subject is completely nonexistant.", despite of both sentences having 8 words each. (Of course, in German you can make much more biased tests: "Der Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän verzweifelte an seinem Einkommensteuerformular." vs. "Der Hund lag in seiner Hütte." - 6 words each)
Second, your typing speed will depend very much on your knowledge of the text/words. Unless you're a physicist, you'll probably take more time typing "Using the stationary phase approximation, the Greens function can be written as follows" than "Using the next highway exit, your destination can be reached as follows" (I mean, in addition to the different length).
BTW, is there anywhere a programmer's typing test (i.e. typing in some code, say a C function, instead of English text)? After all, I can imagine that touch typing is much less an advantage if a lot of the characters you type aren't letters.
Ktouch might be the answer (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to learn to type or improve your typing, give it a go. I am using it at a community center and have had great success with it.
Still important (Score:2, Insightful)
If you TOUCH a computer in your job, then it's 98% likely that you have to type. I don't know too many jobs that only require a person to point and click. Not only is it important in word processing, but also in accounting, creating presentations, database entry, programming and using e-mail. Voice recognition has a long way to go to match normal speech speed, whereas a good typist can type as fast as most people speak and be more accurate.
Personally, I think the typing should be learned as early as possible. A child should be exposed to a computer and learn the basic workings of it, but once they learn to type it opens the door to endless possibilities since the limitation of clicking is taken away. My children starting using a computer when they were 2 1/2 to 3 years old. They're quite proficient with the mouse now. As my elder child enters first grade this year, I'm certain it's time to introduce her to the keyboard.
As for me, I learned to touch type in 9th grade on an IBM selectric. I only attended half a year due to a "health class" requirement, but I reached 80-85wpm with 100%. Just took one of the free online tests (thanks for that), and it puts me at 72wpm with 98% accuracy. I type constantly all day: e-mails, documentation, purchase orders, cmd line. I don't even use UNIX that often. Ask a UNIX person how important typing is.
Still an important skill IMO.
Basic Computing Skills > WPM (Score:3, Insightful)
I picked up on typing in chatrooms.
Find a chatroom on a topic you enjoy so you're forced to engage in conversation. When typing is the only way to get the satisfaction you're after, you'll find yourself a far better typist as time goes on.
The point is: typing is something you can learn as you go, while basic computer knowledge (the ON button, the difference between a Macintosh and a PC, etc) provides a much better foundation for computer usage. The computer is just a tool--do you want to know how it works so that you can adapt it to your needs, or do you want to only know how to do certain specific things with it so that it is otherwise completely useless? I think that if there were a stronger base of computer users who had this general knowledge, people would be less apprehensive with regard to technology, because more people would have a brother or a cousin or an uncle who had the basic know-how and could make those that lacked even the basics feel comfortable.
handwriting and voice recognition? (Score:3, Insightful)
typing won't be obsolete any time now. I learned as a hunt-and-pecker, due to 20 years of practice I pretty much can touch-type now and I'm quite slow let me tell you, at 40 wpm. But it gets me by faster than any handwriter or voice recognizer.
Re:Vastly important (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, your sig explains why you think education is in a downward spiral...you think everything is.
Anyway, I'll agree that I think it's ridiculous to not teach touch-typing, and that your arguments for that are well done. But I will disagree with tremendous strength this notion that public education has been getting steadily worse.
Why? Because there is simply no actual evidence to support it. Lots and lots of downward-spiralers like yourself have spewed this fud over and over again (the earliest American quote of this type I've personally read was from 1807, a scant 20 years after the first public schools here), but no real scientific analysis has ever come to that conclusion. I researched this pretty heavily a few years back for a psych paper, and found that the only reasonable long term studies had found exactly the opposite...that we're getting smarter.
That said, those results were too slim to be conclusive, and relied on at least a logical two-step. Specifically, the studies (one in Europe and an unrelated one in the US) both looked at the calibration testing done on new IQ tests. For the unfamiliar, IQ tests are rewritten every few years, and when they are, the testers need to re-normalize them so that 100 will still be average. They do this by giving a whole bunch of people the test, and setting the scoring accordingly. However, just for good measure, once they normalize the new test, they give both the new and old to some subjects. What both the US and European studies showed was that every single time the tests have been changed, the subjects that took both did worse on the newer version. What's this mean? Well, the tests are getting harder every time...and 100 is still average, which (albeit inconclusively) means we're getting smarter.
Anyway, I said it was inconclusive, but in the absence of a single shred of evidence to the contrary, I'll take it. And that said, I'm not out telling everybody our education system is unbeatable...I just know enough not to sit around bitching about how the whole world is going to hell when I haven't got any evidence that it's so.