I've said several times that there's no "America" when it comes to crime. The averaged crime statistics are a combination of two separate Americas, one very violent, and one very not. This is good news for the vast majority of Americans, and very bad news for a small minority. That needs to be fixed, but it does mean that most people can still lead peaceful, productive lives.

Well it turns out that there's no "America" when it comes to education. The averaged education statistics are a combination of several demographics. And we're doing fine at creating enough students at the top end.

Salzman and Lowell, you will recall, published a study for the Urban Institute a few months ago in which they debunked the myths that American kids are abysmal at math and science, that we are not producing enough people with degrees in those fields, that our average math/science scores are misleading because sadly we have not solved the problem of educating the underclass but the mainstream is fine, and so on. The Nature column by Salzman and Lowell not only summarizes some of their previous findings, but also makes some points that are, I believe new.

One of these new points is striking: In absolute numbers, the U.S. has more top-scoring kids in math and science than any other country studied–by far. The authors point out that it is mainly these kids who become the innovators later as adults, and we’ve got an excellent supply of them. This is completely counter to what one constantly sees in the popular press.

Which leads to a point Salzman made in announcing his article to the Sloan Industry Centers e-mail discussion group: “We’d welcome reactions and particularly thoughts on why the S&E shortage claim is so strongly believed despite lack of evidence.” The answer, of course, is that the groups that stand to benefit from a public perception of an S&E shortage–the tech industry (who want an expanded H-1B work visa program for its cheap labor), the immigration lawyers (who want an expanded H-1B for obvious reasons), the education lobby (”Give us more money so we can remedy the shortage”) and so on hire the slickest PR people money can buy. They’ve been at it for years, to the point at which many people in Congress, the press and the public at large simply take it for granted that “Johnnie can’t do math.”

It's similar to the Olympics: America's performance in China won't be determined by the fitness level of the average American, or even the average American athlete. As long as we have enough athletes at the top end to select as our representatives, they'll be playing our national anthem all day long. And that means all the rest of us Americans don't have to focus on increasing our average athletic abilities unless we want to. We can focus on being in the top end of whatever it is we do. Specialization is a wonderful thing.

I once had a neighbor whose knowledge of history was limited to two dates, 1492 and 1776, and even those two he mixed up as to which events each marked. His ignorance in other fields was just as profound; nevertheless he earned an excellent living as a paving contractor.

— Robert A. Heinlein, Job: A Comedy of Justice

And if you think about it that way, national pride isn't such an odd thing. We're all dependent on each other for something, and as long as we all do a good job, we can all take a little bit of credit. The doctor and the scientist can spend years in school learning their trades because efficient farmers grow so much food that we no longer need the majority of the population to stay on the farm. They, in turn, make it possible for the athlete to do what he does by producing new innovations in medicine, nutrition, and equipment.

As with the Olympic teams, as long as we can fill out the individual fields, we'll all be pulling in the gold.