Name Date Class Is It Shocking Worksheet: Fill & Download for Free

Maybe I can best answer this question from a personal perspective by contrasting two history teachers that taught me in high school. Though they were well acquainted and taught only a few doors down the hall from each other, their teaching methods could not have been more different.My 10th grade European history teacher was the school's golf coach. She was notorious for her sour demeanor -- in reality she was quite good-natured and exhibited a raucous sense of humor, but she took her subject and her classroom seriously -- and was sometimes rudely avoided and ostracized by certain students and even some faculty members. Every term, a few students would drop her class or request another teacher because they found her first exam too difficult. Her method of teaching was like grand storytelling. While we followed the textbook loosely, she taught absolutely all of the material from her personal notes, which would include differing accounts and theories about the same historical events or concepts. Each class session ended with a cliffhanger of some kind -- she was a masterful yarn-spinner, alternating freely between light-hearted regalement and somber rumination in her tone and presence behind the podium, pacing during suspenseful moments, laughing at Machiavellian machinations that didn't work out as planned. For those who stuck with her, attendance was never a problem--we couldn't get enough of it! Our eyes were wide with wonder the whole time. When students had interesting questions she would dig around her bookshelves and the local college library and bring in multiple sources to help answer them, usually the very next day. Her exams were essay only; we were expected to compare and contrast the same topics from different viewpoints, break down and describe the factors that led to certain happenings, even speculate about how x might have gone differently had z been the case rather than y, this sort of thing. We studied hard, damned hard for a public high school. And she graded harshly, not only for factual accuracy, but for critical thinking and quality of judgment.It was quite a shock for me to be passed on to my 11th grade American history instructor. One of the school's football coaches (and he would only answer to 'Coach'), he spent about half of each period virtually reading the book aloud to the class and the other half giving us pre-fabricated multiple-choice worksheets on material from the current chapter: it was the wholesale rote memorization of definitions, names, places, and dates. While we completed these worksheets or took exams, he would usually wander around the school tending to football business or completing clerical tasks he should have seen to during his planning period. As an attachment to our chapter exams we were expected to write a measly 1-page essay on a predetermined topic (which we were given weeks in advance). Writing in much the same manner I had used for my previous teacher, I rarely made above a low B on those short essays. "GOOD WRITING BUT NEEDS MORE FACTS,' he would scrawl illegibly across the top of my essays. 'INCLUDE MORE FACTS.' 'MORE FACTS AND DATES, C-, 73/100.' Put simply, students who thought about the material, studied, and strove to understand it were punished. Those who could regurgitate on a test paper the same answers they'd placed on a worksheet a week before were handsomely rewarded.Both of these folks are/were good people, I'm sure. This isn't meant to be personal. In response to your question, I think the approaches of these two professional educators represent the difference between the true importance of studying history, and how history is by and large perceived and digested in our culture of tweets, soundbytes, and headlines designed to whoosh by our perceptual field as concisely and quickly as possible so as not to interfere with our far more important business of...what, exactly? "Getting and spending," as Wordsworth once put it.The endless stream of data pouring in via media saturation is in some ways a wonderful thing. Though one has to watch for slant and spin, one can find out much of what is going anywhere, anytime. The problem is that this quantity of data never adds up to quality of understanding, never actually provides the why. Rather, it distorts the reasons behind states of affairs through repetition and distillation; the result is perfect fodder for political spin of any variety one chooses. This is where application of critical thinking to a careful, thorough study of history comes into play. If one knows a bit of history and has done a bit of travel, the world begins to take on an aspect of clarity I'm not sure is attainable by any other means.

I don't know what you mean by elite intelligence, but I will answer your question as by all standards, my son was gifted (and he is now 19, a junior double-majoring at Caltech in math and CS).All parents believe their children are gifted, but my son hit normal benchmarks months to years before other children. I suspected he was special when he began saying words at six months. He was speaking by a year and speaking in full, adult sentences by 18 months. (His favorite word was “actually”. By the time he was 2 1/2 and in preschool, it was very obvious that he was much more advanced than the other children as he was reading words and doing basic math when most couldn't recognize their names. I didn't have to suspect it as everybody told me how smart he was.In fact, people would say something to him at the grocery store, like “how old are you” expecting him to shyly hold three fingers up, and were shocked when he would say the year, month, hour and seconds in full sentences, as well as the date and any fact he could think of. :).(No, he's not autistic) :).More than things like reading early, he seemed to have a much longer attention span and deeper curiosity than other children and was quite thoughtful. He didn't give up. He was not interested in things other kids were-he was not one to pretend to be batman and put on a cape; he wanted to learn to use a Rubik's cube (and did), and not only learn it, but learned how to grease it, learned to do it in under a minute, etc. The toys he liked were math manipulatives and not transformers or whatever was popular. He enjoyed playing board games but also loved Nintendo. He was always something unique for Halloween. He was just a different thinker. He showed a very strong interest in science early on, and we encouraged him.In fact, that's what we did-what he was interested in, we allowed. He got telescopes and trips to science centers, math books-birthday parties were “mad science” parties, that sort of thing. We didn't try to fit him in any box, we just let him be who he was.As his mom, I didn't have to fight for recognition of his intelligence-all his teachers saw it and he accelerated two grades, fortunately into a gifted program. They would do no more because of his age, but did allow him to go to upper grades for math classes, and gave him worksheets at his level (years above what they taught) to do when he was finished with his work.Part of his personality is patience, so even when things were easy for him, he did it anyway. He was the kid who helped others learn when he was done to stay involved, and he always found something interesting to do. He is also friendly and was popular, unusual for somebody with high intelligence, or so I hear. He had lots of friends always, yet in high school participated in all the “nerdy” stuff. Fortunately, he went to an IB school with lots of bright kids. He was on the nationally winning science bowl team, and all his school supported and were proud of the team.If somebody is gifted (a word I hate actually) it will show. Whether it's intellectual, athletic, mechanical or musical talent, it will out itself. As a parent, you do no different with the intellectually gifted than with the musically/athletically gifted. You encourage them, take them places like lessons and concerts and games, and do the best you can to fulfill their needs. Let them follow their interests and open them up to a new one. But if they don't like it, don't force it. (My son was in soccer, basketball and little league. None stuck and he didn't force it but kept the idea that taking care of your body is a good thing. Turns out, he likes to run.)I would not worry about whether any child is “gifted” or not. Every child is special and with good parenting, every child will find their place. Not every kid is destined to be valedictorian but lots of kids who were are not successful. So in my mind, it's most important to pay attention to who your kid is. They are all gifted in something.

History in Japanese SchoolsOkay Kohei Sakaike, I am assuming from your name that you are living in good old Japan. Of course you may be a national of any country on earth but I am assuming you have Japanese ancestors. None of what I have to say in the following answer is meant to offend you or anyone else for that matter.As a Historian, I don’t think Japanese history or indeed even world history is taught properly in Japan. What Japanese people get in school is a ‘narrative’ (to use that overly used word) of what the Japanese government wants you to understand of Japan and world history.Of what people in my country, New Zealand, learn of Japan’s history:Short answer; of Japan’s internal history, very little to none. The Meiji Restoration might come up depending on what History subject or elective the student chooses. Japan’s modernization or militarization might be mentioned tangentially depending on the topic and the relevance of said events to it. For further details, read on.For New Zealand in general, Japan is not such an important influence historically.Long answer; Japan’s role in World War Two is well known. Especially in New Zealand and Australia. The war was a very traumatic and important part of our history. The populations of these countries were tiny (Australia; 7 million, New Zealand; 1.6 million ). Nearly every man of military age was called up. Australia put 2 million men and women into uniform and New Zealand raised an army of 350,000. Most of New Zealand and Australia’s troops were older reservists and World War One veterans that were called back to service). Remember that Japan had around 10 million combatants and was sending unknown but huge numbers of men, ships, submarines and aircraft into the South West Pacific, basically ‘our neck of the woods.’ On February 19th 1942, 242 Japanese aircraft bombed Darwin killing 236 people, wounding 200–300 more, sinking 11 ships, damaging and grounding 28 more, and destroying 30 aircraft. Altogether there would be 100 Japanese air attacks on Australia. There were also many naval attacks on Australian and New Zealand shipping. In Australian waters, 53 ships were sunk and more than 1751 sailors were killed. Around New Zealand’s coastal waters, 1 ship was sunk and 2 sailors were killed.Bombing of Darwin - WikipediaAxis naval activity in Australian waters - WikipediaThere were many Western observers in China and Japan’s brutality was well known. In hindsight Japan was unwilling and from a logistics point of view unable to invade New Zealand and Australia, but in war any eventuality must be prepared for. Basically every military aged man in Australia and New Zealand was in some form of military service, as were many women. In many families, especially in rural areas any kind of fire arm and ammunition was stockpiled. Many mothers kept cyanide pills for themselves and their children. The Rape of Nanking and other atrocities being committed against native and European populations in Japanese occupied areas was already widespread knowledge.The following is based on my school experience from 1979 to 1992. When I was at Primary (elementary) School there was no specific class where we learned all of this but it would come up somehow and we would talk about it. This might be from a book being read in English class, an artifact being looked at in a museum, a map study in geography class (a map of the local area might include military facilities like airfields, relics of defense lines like bunkers and pill boxes), a field trip to the beach or a coastal area the students would be shown the defensive bunkers, pill boxes and tunnel complexes that were built to resist the expected invasion. Depending on your teachers, school, opportunities for field trips, what books were read in English class, what topics were studied in History class and many other factors, some understanding of the war and Japan’s role in it will be obtained.In my generation many of the children had grandfathers that served in the ‘Home Army’ or the expeditionary forces that were sent to Europe, North Africa and the South West pacific fronts. We also had a school trip to the local Jewish School and Synagogue complex where there was an exhibit on the Holocaust. Many students had family that were caught up in the war in other ways, even though they were civilians. Many New Zealanders are immigrants from the United Kingdom, as New Zealand was a member of the commonwealth and had been a British colony. Great Britain was seen as ‘The Mother Country’. Many of these older British immigrants had memories of ‘The Blitz’, the German bombing campaign against British cities. As the class style in New Zealand schools involves a lot of questioning, discussion, inquiry and debate all manner of things are talked about by both the teachers and students. On some occasions, maybe in class or on a field trip various experts, such as Librarians, Museum curators, veterans, local historians, or Holocaust survivors are also included in the lesson. But it wasn’t all one sided, We also learned about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in quite gruesome detail. I remember a series of lessons we had in Junior High School about that, we saw many photographs of the victims and read the painful stories they told in their own words. We watched the movie ‘The Day After’ so that the reality of it would strike home. Even though this was a movie about a day after a nuclear war in modern America, it made us think about how it might be if that happened to us. Being able to empathize with the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is important. We also learned about the overall bombing campaign on Japan and Germany which killed far more people that the atomic bombs. So the average New Zealander from my generation has either some understanding or a pretty comprehensive view of the war, it’s effect on the people of the world and of how close it came to our country. It all depends on the person. I think that still holds true with the younger generations.Those who took History as an elective subject in High School studied the topic in a more systematic and in depth way. But first, I need to give you a quick run down on the New Zealand High School system. High School has 5 grades and for the average student starts around 12/13 years old. In the first grade we had to take mostly compulsory subjects, however we could choose which foreign language we wanted to take. From the second year of High School the number of compulsory subjects decreases and the number of ‘elective’ subjects increases. In many schools English, Math and Basic Science were compulsory, it varied between schools. But all other subjects were ‘elective.’ The basic idea is that after two or three years each individual student discovers what they want to study, what they really enjoy doing or the kind of direction they want to go in the future. This doesn’t necessarily mean you have already chosen a career path but you have an idea where your orientations lie. People who are Math and Science oriented might take all math and science subjects like Calculus, Statistics, Chemistry, Physics or Biology. Artist types might take Drama, Music, Art, Art History etc. People who are interested in History might take History, Geography, Classical Studies etc. Of course, you can do other subjects the next year, and how you mix the subjects depends on you. I went to school from 1987 to 1992 and Computing was also one of the electives. We used the famous/infamous Commodore 64 computers!In the third year I took History. One of the Courses was known as ‘The Origins of World War Two.’ I don’t remember too clearly but one course was probably about 20 lessons, perhaps more. There was also a lot of recommended reading that we had to do for homework. There were probably five or six more courses in that year of History, each school, indeed each teacher chooses to focus on different courses. Other courses I remember where ‘The Russian Revolution’, ‘The Chinese Civil War’, ‘The Arab Israeli Conflict’, ( from the rise of the Zionist movement in the late 1800s to the modern era), and I am very sorry I have forgotten the others, perhaps that was it. It was When I was 15 years old, that’s 30 years ago! Throughout the year we had to write an essay on each topic and the marks we got from these essays counted towards your end of year grade. The marks you get in the exam at the end of the year counted for the rest of your grade but I can’t remember the proportion. Perhaps it was 1/3 exam, 2/3 essays written during the year. In the end of year exam you would turn over your exam paper and maybe there were 20 questions to choose from. Even though the rise of fascism in Europe and Japan were both covered in the ‘Origins of World War Two’ course, there were a few different question formats that you could choose from depending on what angle you felt comfortable answering. You had to choose 3 questions from among the 20 and had three hours to write a 1000 word essay on each. And as I understand it, these essays are sent to Wellington, the capital, where independent and professional exam assessors mark them. And to guarantee as fair and unbiased mark as possible, they are passed on to three assessors in total, each assessors does not know what score was attributed by the other assessor. And if their mark varies by more than a couple of percent, then the exam is remarked. One of the essay questions I chose to answer was; ‘Discuss the role of nationalism in the rise to power of the Nazi Party in Germany’. ( I may be getting the exact wording of the exam question wrong but the gist of it is accurate. ) I wrote about seven or eight pages of exam paper ( about A4 size) and I think I got 87 or 88% for that essay if memory serves me correctly.The course went into great detail about the inter war period in Germany, the treaty of Versailles, the Wiemar Republic, and the rise of the Nazi party, the re militarization of the Rhineland, The Nazi take over of Austria( AKA the Anschluss ), the Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia, It also looks at the various treaties that were signed between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and Militarist Japan, The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ( which sealed Poland’s fate ), the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940 and the German Soviet joint invasion of Poland.Part of this course also went into Japan’s aggression in the Far East prior to what is most usually thought of as true beginning of ‘World War Two’ with the German invasion of Poland in September 1939. As part of this and the ‘Mukden Incident’ which lead to Japan’s occupation of Manchuria in 1931 and the ‘ Marco Polo Bridge Incident’, which was the rationale for Japan’s invasion of the rest of Nationalist China in 1937, is concentrated on. Unlike the part of the course which concentrated on the rise of Fascism in Europe, the internal machinations that lead to the rise of Fascism/Militarism in Japan was not covered.It was important to remember what events happened when, but more importantly the cause and effect, the ‘why’, and ‘what for’ element had the most emphasis put on it. We were encouraged to look at primary evidence in the form of documents, photographs, letters, contemporary newspaper reports and cartoons. We also looked at secondary sources and were taught to think about who the author was and what if any political bias they might have. We were encouraged to think about and discuss the event in great detail. Trying to understand why something happens and tie in all of the variables to make sense of an event is good practice at problem solving. Working through the perplexity of every event is also a great way to develop true ‘cognitive ability’. This is learning the true role of the Historian and the academic in general.I mention all of this because in 1993, I came to Japan as an exchange student. Using this question about ‘How is Japanese history taught in your country?’ is a good way to contrast the difference. There were many things about the school in went to in Japan which were different from where I went to school in New Zealand but two things are very relevant to this discussion. The first was the ‘blanket of silence’ in Japan over its role in World War Two. The collective memory of this period in Japan’s history seemed to be ‘We were bombed. Okinawa was destroyed and many ‘Japanese’ died, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atom bombs. The Japanese people suffered terribly.’ These were indeed terrible events, they were absolutely horrible and traumatic to the victims and survivors. But even though people here know that Japan attacked Pearl Habour, there seems to be little understanding of anything else that happened in the war. There is a definite and well documented ‘victim complex’ in Japan.It comes as a surprise to many Japanese people that the war in Asia was a side show compared to the wider world war. Japan lost about 3% of its population, horrible as this may be, it pales into insignificance beside the losses suffered by the Poles, the Russians, the Ukrainians and most of all the Jewish people who had half of their total world wide population exterminated.Indeed, Allied policy was one of ‘Germany First’ as Germany, with its more advanced and widespread industrial capacity, first world economy and wider ‘ethnic German’ population base throughout Europe, posed a far greater threat to the world than Japan.The most illuminating statistic to illustrate this point is that for every ton of bombs dropped on Japan, 60 tons were dropped on Germany.What Japanese history lessons leave outIt’s often talked about how Japanese school textbooks have only a couple of vague paragraphs about the whole of the Second World War, this is true. The textbooks are regulated the government. ( The Ministry of Education AKA the Monbukagakusho AKA the Monbusho has to approve all content and has tight control over school curriculum. ) But in history textbooks, a couple of paragraphs is about the coverage every topic gets. It is illegal for teachers to use any book that has not be approved by the government.This brings me on to the second thing that I found surprising. lesson and curriculum in Japan. And because of the focus of this question, I will talk about history class in particular.In History class in Japan, all of the lessons were very ‘light’ on detail. As I mentioned above, one of the courses in my High School History class when I was 15 in New Zealand would involve 20 or more lessons, class discussions, mock debates, reading assignments for homework etc, but in the History classes I attended in Japan, one event, even a very important event never got more than one lesson. History class mostly revolved around memorizing events and dates and some very superficial ‘and this is why it happened’ type statements, all of which must be memorized almost verbatim for the test. Students are not given the opportunity to interpret information and come to their own conclusions. The interpretation of the event has already been decided by the Ministry of Education and this is what they ‘allow’ in the History textbooks. Nothing is taught but what is going to be in the test, and nothing that is in the test has not already been taught. The students memorize for the class test, which is held soon after and then forget it. (see below on inauthentic learning)(Of course this is being horribly unfair to some teachers in Japan who make heroic efforts to foster some cognitive ability in their students in the midst of Japan’s totalitarian ‘same think’ education system.)One day, the lesson was ‘The 1973 Oil Shock’. The Oil Shock and the Arab Israeli conflict that lead to it was covered in one lesson. The roots of the conflict were barely brushed upon, the event itself and how it affected the world’s economy and in particular Japan’s economy were talked about. The teacher lectured, 1/5 of the students slept ( normal in japan but unthinkable in New Zealand and every other Western country except maybe in the worst school imaginable. In the Japanese classroom there is 0(zero) student participation, listening and paying attention do not count as student participation), The rest of the students looked bored and at the end of the class they were given a ‘print’ (worksheet) in which they went through answering multiple choice questions, some closed questions relating to what the teacher had just been talking about and in many cases was still written on the board. (And students in Japan are given a print in nearly every lesson, actually I don’t recall a lesson in which a print was not handed out, I ended up with literally boxes full of them.) And there was no follow up. No reading assignment for homework, no essays, no discussions, no inquiry, no problem solving activities, no mock debates, not a single student ever rose their hand to ask a question or to clarify something, not once did I ever see that in any classroom ever! Nothing but rote learning in every subject. (And apparently the school I went to was very well regarded) Any test or exam we ever had was short, about 1 hour at the absolute maximum but usually much shorter. The tests only had multiple choice questions or closed questions (a closed question is a question with only one possible answer. Such as ‘What’s the capital of Greece?’ An example of an open question might bean essay question such as; ‘Discuss the role of Athens in the creation of Western culture.’ The former you can cram for, increasing the number of questions plus answers that you can cram does not constitute real learning. The open questions cannot be crammed for. You have to learn a lot of things. You have to think about a lot of things in depth. This pretty much defines the difference between being educated and being schooled.)On the day we had the ‘Oil Shock’ class, I was walking out of the classroom and said to one of my friends; ‘What do you think it would be like if we had an oil shock these days?’ he looked baffled by what I had just said, although I said it in perfect Japanese. I might as well have been an alien hopped up on crack! And he was considered one of the brightest boys in the class, he always nailed those tests. I guess he was really good at memorizing stuff. Now if he had been educated instead of being schooled, he would have been able to talk about it. And it is the talking about it with other people that helps you think more deeply about things. But you have to be prepared to make mistakes, you have to be prepared to change your mind. You may never come up with the ‘one true correct answer’, that is academic inquiry which is sorely lacking in Japan. The constant discussion, inquiry, investigation and updating of knowledge comes from the many, not a government department. But when the system is designed for ‘one true Correct answer’ teaching and testing, then it is actually ‘Anti Education’ not ‘Education’. But superficially results show up immediately, look those kids had that class yesterday, we gave them a test and they did well. A bad education is easy to sell. But the benefits of learning something in depth only show up over time and with a much more complex way of assessing competency than ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer format allows.Basically, what is going on in the Japanese classroom is known as ‘inauthentic learning’. Studies show that with this ‘rote memorization’ style of learning, the students will forget 95% of what they studied within three days.The alternative is authentic learning. (see the link below.)Authentic learning - WikipediaAuthentic vs. Inauthentic EducationAnd for the students who didn’t get enough rote learning during the day, didn’t understand something or has poor grades there is a whole industry of ‘Juku’ (private fee paying after school classes in which more information in ‘crammed’ into the students heads. ‘Juku’ literally translates as ‘cram’ school). In these institutes, in which an alarming proportion of Japanese students attend, everything they were supposed to learn in school or were unable to because of time constraints, is ‘crammed’ into tired brains until late at night. The focus is on cramming in facts, not learning how to think. Instead of cramming in irrelevant and unconnected facts, students need to learn how to think. ‘If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.’ Students in Japan are continually being given fish and losing there childhood for no real gain.A bad education is easy to sell.It seems to me that either by design or by accident, school in Japan is meant to produce obedient, conforming, docile and long suffering citizens that don’t want or know how to look to deeply into any problem. This doesn’t mean to say that all students and adults remain this way. I have met exceptions, but they have to be careful what they say and if they are Historians, they have to be careful what they write. The weight of society is ready and waiting to smash down any dissenters. ‘The nail that sticks up gets hammered down’, as the old Japanese proverb goes.In Japan’s vaunted education system, I don’t think that history is taught at all. What is taught there is a sanitized version of history that pleases the masses, and doesn’t allow the students to develop the ability to challenge or contradict any information which is sanctioned by the Government.The last thing that is expected of students is to be able to interpret any information in their own way. Rote learning and multiple choice/closed question tests are the rule. There is no understanding by teachers in Japan of the higher level cognitive skills. I encourage you to look up ‘Blooms Taxonomy’. Hence the lack of emphasis put on ‘creating’ work, whether it be writing stories and essays, setting up your own experiment to prove a scientific hypothesis, designing a dress in fashion design class or composing your own piece of music.These higher level cognitive skills are part of what modern history teaching is. ‘Teaching history’ is about teaching students to analyze and evaluate the primary and secondary sources. Students must be able to interpret documents , articles, books, political cartoons and graphs. They need to be able to come to their own conclusions about what they are reading or seeing, not have a teacher (through the guidance of the Ministry of Education) tell them what it means so that they can memorize it and regurgitate it for the test. They need to be able to support their position with facts and references and judge the positions of other writers.There is an old saying that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Sadly, Japan has a very warped view of it’s own history.Some Universities are starting to think about implementing essay questions in English for their entrance exams. But we are talking about half page ‘essays’ on trivial topics that are unlikely to be very rigorously evaluated. And that only motivates students to get better at English. This is not a cure, it’s a band aid solution.There is some talk about reform, but efforts in the past have amounted to little more than ‘window dressing’. I think three factors hinder reform. The first is the lack of expertise in Japan. The primary role of teachers in Japan is controlling and shaping their students into becoming the above mentioned obedient citizens. Because of this the overwhelming majority of teachers in Japan only know how to teach lecture style and create multiple choice/closed question type tests. The second problem is the influence of the vast Juku industry, which has the same sort of teachers and a vested interest in the status quo. After all, if students are learning properly in school and tests or exams can be revised by reading books and watching documentaries, there would be no reason for the families of students to pay money to a private after school institute. The third problem is that many parents in Japan confess to being very nervous about their child’s education. They want to see results fast. they want to get their children onto the ‘good’ School, ‘good’ University, ‘good’ company fast. Allowing a student to follow their own path is a frightening prospect. In this group culture ‘failure’ reflects on everyone. Schools, Universities, the Juku Industry and parents in Japan are impatient to see their money and effort pay dividends.Retraining the vast numbers of teachers would be a huge, complex and very expensive task. A task that may now be beyond the financial ability of Japan’s government. And the private Juku companies are too fond of their 10 billion dollars of annual profit. As I wrote above, the benefits of learning something in depth only show up over time.And after all, a bad education is easy to sell.