Hose Kim

Ms. Aboelezz

AP Language & Composition

August 28, 2017

The Smartest Kids in the World--and How They Got That Way by Amanda Ripley: SOAPStone

Evaluation

Speaker: Amanda Ripley, the author of the book, has been a journalist in Time, The Atlantic, and

many other notable magazines. Before she began her research on education, Ripley already had

an extensive experience in writing articles regarding terrorist attacks, a flu epidemic, or plane

crashes. Her reputation prior to writing this book already demonstrates her credibility. Ripley

further establishes ethos by relying on American “field agents” to explore education in different

countries firsthand. The three American students, although they might not have represented all

American teenagers, experienced the “life that was missing from the policy briefings” (Ripley 8).

The personal experiences, along with statistics from reliable sources such as National

Assessment of Progress (NAEP), earn trust from the audience. At the outset, Ripley

demonstrates a shift in attitude towards education; before writing the book, she has viewed

education stories as soft and lacking evidence. Only after she began interviewing a new

Chancellor of the Washington, D.C.’s public schools, she found new interest in education and

how different factors impacted students’ learning. However, her stance on education is unclear in

the beginning, as she just begins her process of assessing educational systems in different

countries. Ripley uses massive amount of statistics from credible sources and personal

experiences from students, teachers, and educators; hence, most of her arguments are unbiased.

The only time Ripley directly expresses her feelings about the subject is when she discussed
 Kim 2

about the faults in American education. She frustrates over the low admission standards in many

teacher-training colleges in America, which she describes as “recruiting flight instructors who

had never successfully landed a plane, then wondering why so many planes were crashing”

(Ripley 85). Ripley expresses her discontent in how her own nation is not able to take any bold

moves toward education and raise up the standards in teacher colleges.

Occasion: Ripley’s interest in education, particularly her curiosity on the diverse academic

performance of students based on nationality, leads her to this investigation. Based on the data

from Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which was taken by nearly half a

million students across forty-three countries, students who performed below average on the test

were not able to demonstrate communication and critical thinking skills (Ripley 15). Thus,

Ripley searches for the most effective education system that would help students worldwide to

acquire necessary skills for life. A major social issue in America highlighted in the book is the

declining high school graduates. According to the Tulsa World, a newspaper company in

northeastern Oklahoma, one superintendent in Oklahoma high school says, “the graduating class

of seniors might be known as the ‘lost generation’” (Ripley 34). A strong emphasis on athletic

achievements, increasing rates of child poverty, and low standards of teacher colleges are the

basic pattern in American education. In order to counter the problem, Ridley went on a quest to

investigate Korea, Finland, and Poland for their academic excellence. There is no personal

motivation that drove Ridley into writing this piece, other than her own interest in educational

issues. She simply wants to discover the problems in American education and find a solution to

fix it. The characteristics of the culture in some countries determine their success in education.

For example, in Korea, a student’s academic success means social and economic elevation for

the entire family, thus the only thing that has become important for Korean students has been the
 Kim 3

examination (Ripley 59). This “Iron Child” Korean culture has led to Korea’s high performance

in international tests, but also high rates of depression. Racial stereotypes also appear in

numerous countries. In Finland, despite the high performance by students at the Tiistila school,

most parents were not satisfied with the school as they “were worried about the immigrant

children. They’d been worried when there were 6 percent immigrants, and they were more

worried now that there were 30 percent” (Ripley 167). Unlike the United States, the historically

long racial homogeneity in Finland has produced a narrow view towards foreigners.

Audience: The primary audience is American parents, students, and educators. Although Ridley

never directly mentions her audience, she uses first person pronouns like “we” and “our” in order

to show she is addressing all Americans, including herself. However, when Ripley refers to

Koreans, Poles, or Finns, she uses third person pronouns like “they.” This demonstrates her

attachment to Americans. Ripley also addresses those who could bring significant changes to

American education. Parents, for example, determine the education their children would receive

and indirectly influence the character of their children. Ripley agrees, “PTA parents certainly

contributed to the school’s culture, budget, and sense of community. However, there was not

much evidence that PTA parents helped their children become critical thinkers” (Ripley 110).

Her message to the parents is clearly being sent, that their involvement does not enhance

students’ critical thinking or communication skills. In addition, Ripley also targets Department of

Education and lawmakers who can change the way students are taught and improve American

education. She illustrates the static progress in the development of more effective education in

America. For example, the Oklahoma lawmakers were too hesitant to bring in final examination

to state high schools, as they were afraid “even this baby step toward more rigorous education

system was too harsh” (Ripley 185). Rather than directly addressing the audience, Ripley
 Kim 4

presents a statement that connects to them. Her call to action is quite conclusive. Ripley wants

children to demonstrate critical thinking and analytical skills, and “the only way to do that is by

creating a serious intellectual culture in schools, one that kids can sense is real and true” (Ripley

199). Furthermore, Ripley appeals to pathos numerous times, but the most effective one is when

she illustrates the fear and shame kids would feel when they enter the adult world mentally and

morally unprepared. She warns to the audience: “this revelation---that they lack tools that have

become essential in the modern economy---will in all likelihood arrive privately, a kind of

sinking shame that they cannot entirely explain” (Ripley 198). Ripley takes advantage of the

parents’ affection for their children in order to emphasize the significance of education. Parents

would not want their children to be behind in the society, thus they would begin to listen more

attentively to the author’s arguments.

Purpose: Ripley’s message is straightforward: in order to create a self-productive and efficient

society, an education system that teaches students how to “think” is required. She informs the

deficiencies in American education from lowly skilled teachers to inflexible education policies.

The most significant factor that determines academic excellence, as Ripley states, is the “core

habits, workhorse traits sometimes summed up by the old-fashioned word character” (Ripley

120). There was a “rigor” among students and teachers in academically top-notch countries,

which was missing in America. Nonetheless, Ripley remains hopeful by exemplifying that

American students can also score high in PISA. For example, in 2006, Polish students scored

below average on the reading and math PISA tests, however within three years, they surpassed

most of the developed countries and became an education powerhouse (Ripley pg. 136). Poland

replaced their core curriculum, regularized standardized tests at every grade, and raised their

expectations for students. Ripley demonstrates to the audience that the United States can also
 Kim 5

undergo such groundbreaking development. In all her arguments, the statistics and data are

selectively chosen to make her arguments logical and clear. In fact, Ripley first-handedly takes

the PISA test in order to guarantee the credibility of her evidence, and she personally interviews

Andreas Schleicher, the founder of the PISA (Ripley 19). She also purposefully acknowledges

and refutes a counterargument to strengthen her point. For instance, Ripley mentions that the

racial homogeneity in Korea, Poland, and Finland could have been a possible factor in their

academic success compared to America. She then immediately falsifies the counterargument by

proving that the racial diversity in America did not largely impact their test scores. The gap

between natives and immigrants on PISA scores was 22 points in the United States, compared to

zero in Canada with similar racial diversity as United States (Ripley 160). Ripley adds, “the

biggest problem with this kind of diversity is that it wasn’t actually diverse. Most white kids had

majority white classmates. Black and Hispanic students, meanwhile, were most likely to attend

majority black or Hispanic schools” (Ripley 160). As such, Ripley appeals to logos by analyzing

every data in depth to develop an argument and show her understanding of other viewpoints by

refuting the counterargument.

Subject: The explicit subject is how some countries teach their kids more effectively than others,

while the implicit subject is the impacts of the transformation of global education. Ripley

reminds the audience how expectations and standards in the modern world have significantly

changed. She states, “relationships were no longer everything. To succeed, salespeople had to

understand the increasingly sophisticated and customizable products they were selling almost as

well as engineers who worked on them” (Ripley 5). Moreover, every technological, social, or

cultural development revolves around education. According to Lee Ju-Ho, an education minister

of Korea, “the country has no natural resources, so it cultivated its people instead, turning
 Kim 6

education into currency” (Ripley 59). Prior to the development of education, Poland also went

through a series of political and social turmoil under Nazi and communist rules, suffering from

rising rates of crime and poverty even after the formation of European Union (Ripley 126). The

significance of education is well highlighted here. For most underdeveloped nations, education is

the only key to revival. The complexity of the issue extends to the United States, despite their top

class research facilities and universities. American children today score less than 20 countries on

PISA. Most Americans have valued “the audacity to speak up, to invent, and to redefine what

was possible,” but what makes the difference today is the ability to “think” (Ripley 6). The

approach each country takes in order to educate their children can entirely change their culture.

In spite of the remarkable academic achievements, Korea took the wrong turn in education. After

witnessing the dreadful reality of Korean students, Ripley comments, “competition [in Korea]

had become an end unto itself, not the learning it was supposed to motivate. The country had

created a monster” (Ripley 60). This contradicts the education in Finland, which Ripley defines

as “a system built on trust in which kids achieved higher-order thinking without excessive

competition or parental meddling” (Ripley 24). The importance of education is quite evident

here. Based on how the country decides to educate their kids, it can completely reshape the

future.

Tone: Ripley alternates between various tones to appropriately deliver her arguments, opinions,

or statistics. In the beginning, Ripley seems to be inquisitive as she seeks for an answer to the

wildly varying academic performance across the world. She frequently uses an interrogative

style of sentence whenever she goes across any unexpected data. For instance, Ripley shows her

puzzlement over the drastic differences in education levels as she asks, “Why were some kids

learning so much---and others so very little?” (Ripley 2). Her tone becomes more objective when
 Kim 7

she analyzes statistics. Ripley avoids using personal pronouns or emotional words in order to

keep unbiased, neutral voice. This prevents her from injecting her own opinions into the facts

and helps the audience to develop their own viewpoints on the subject. For example, Ripley’s

objective tone is quite apparent when she reveals the failing of Korean high school teacher

colleges: “Those 350 [high school teacher] colleges had lower standards than the elementary

training programs. [...] Teacher preparation was a lucrative industry for colleges, but the lower

standards made the profession less prestigious and less effective” (Ripley 63). Here, Ripley

remains concise and rarely lets her emotions slip out. This unveils the more professional and

impartial side of Ripley. However, she turns to emotions at times as well, especially when she

talks about the personal experiences of her “field agents” in different countries. Eric is one of the

exchange students from Minnesota who had volunteered to go to Korea. Ripley describes his

experience as very distressful and mentally agonizing: “It felt like he spent every day in a huge

cage, watching other kids run on a hamster wheel. The wheel never stopped; it thrummed day

and night” (Ripley 115). Through the vivid imagery and metaphor, the audience can imagine

how the extreme competition in Korea is draining the lives out of the students. The connotative

meaning of “cage” gives the audience a feeling of confinement and restriction in Korea. The

students are pressured to study out of their own will, and they do not have any choice because

everyone does it. Ripley compares their lives to a hamster wheel, as the students endlessly study

for better results. The Korean students forget the purpose of education and become obsessed with

high test scores and rankings. As a result, Ripley not only gains sympathy from the audience but

she also warns them the result of extreme competition and meritocracy. Ripley deliberately

changes her tone from time to time in order to emphasize different points for a particular topic.

Rhetorical Devices:
 Kim 8

Ripley uses a plethora of rhetorical devices to convey her points and evoke an emotional

response from her audience.

To begin with, Ripley uses an analogy to depict the confinement of students in the

Korean society and the soaring expectation everyone has on them. She states, “teenagers were in

all kinds of closets, sometimes literally, locked into small, airless spaces, studying for the test”

(Ripley 66). Here, Ripley compares the dire situation of Korean students to being locked in a

closet and studying for a test. The analogy allows the audience to understand the pressure on

typical Korean students through more familiar imagery; the audience can imagine how much the

Korean students loathe their system. Through the analogy, Ripley also emphasizes the

significance of developing effective education system in order to prevent such misery and

depression in the lives of students. Her choice of diction such as “airless” and “locked” adds to

the feeling of despair in the sentence.

Furthermore, Ripley uses metaphor to emphasize the problem in how math is taught in

America. She describes, “the problem with chance was that math was a hierarchy. If kids like

Tom and Kim missed one rung on the scaffolding, they would strain and slip and probably never

get a foothold on the next rung. A child’s first algebra course had lasting impact” (Ripley 78).

Ripley draws a comparison between math and hierarchy in order to show that learning math is a

step-by-step process. In other words, if students miss the basic fundamentals in math, they can

never climb up from the bottom of the hierarchy. America’s math handicap comes from the fact

that students are not able to set a strong foundation of mathematical skills at early childhood. The

vivid imagery of students falling off the hierarchy allows the audience to visualize the conceptual

problem.
 Kim 9

Third, Ripley uses antithesis to indicate the contrast between American and Korean

parents. She explains how “Korean parents saw themselves as coaches, while American parents

tended to act more like cheerleaders” (Ripley 107). The antithesis supports the argument set by

Ripley, as the difference in how Korean and American parents treat their kids influence their

academic performance. Korean parents are like “coaches,” prioritizing test scores and results.

They would push their kids to their best and expose them to both failure and success. Ripley, on

the other hand, describes American parents as “cheerleaders”, who praise their children all the

time regardless of results. They are more protective and friendly. Through antithesis, Ripley

emphasizes both the pros and cons of each type of parenting, but the results are more effective

for Korean parents.

 Kim 10

Works Cited

Ripley, Amanda. The Smartest Kids in the World: and How They Got That Way. Simon &

Schuster Paperbacks, 2014.