---
product_id: 2237095
title: "The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way"
price: "€ 26.71"
currency: EUR
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.hr/products/2237095-the-smartest-kids-in-the-world-and-how-they-got
store_origin: HR
region: Croatia
---

# The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way

**Price:** € 26.71
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way
- **How much does it cost?** € 26.71 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.hr](https://www.desertcart.hr/products/2237095-the-smartest-kids-in-the-world-and-how-they-got)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

How do other countries create “smarter” kids? What is it like to be a child in the world’s new education superpowers? The Smartest Kids in the World “gets well beneath the glossy surfaces of these foreign cultures and manages to make our own culture look newly strange....The question is whether the startling perspective provided by this masterly book can also generate the will to make changes” ( The New York Times Book Review ) . In a handful of nations, virtually all children are learning to make complex arguments and solve problems they’ve never seen before. They are learning to think, in other words, and to thrive in the modern economy. Inspired to find answers for our own children, author and Time magazine journalist Amanda Ripley follows three Americans embed­ded in these countries for one year. Kim, fifteen, raises $10,000 so she can move from Oklahoma to Finland; Eric, eighteen, trades his high-achieving Minnesota suburb for a booming city in South Korea; and Tom, seventeen, leaves a historic Pennsylvania village for Poland. Through these young informants, Ripley meets battle-scarred reformers, sleep-deprived zombie students, and a teacher who earns $4 million a year. Their stories, along with groundbreaking research into learning in other cultures, reveal a pattern of startling transformation: none of these countries had many “smart” kids a few decades ago. Things had changed. Teaching had become more rigorous; parents had focused on things that mattered; and children had bought into the promise of education.

Review: Ripley can't cover all possibilities, but she sure gives us food for thought - I recently read Amanda Ripley's "The Smartest Kids in the World and How They Got That Way" and was glad someone did this work. Yes, I knew that advocates for gifted children or advocates for teachers' unions would get their hackles up over many of the points that Ripley made. They might say that clearly she doesn't "understand" the needs of gifted children, blah-blah-blah. Clearly she doesn't understand how "unfair" it would be to keep "normal" people (i.e., those who weren't the best students themselves) out of teaching with her observation that schools must have the smartest and best trained teachers from the population if their students are to do well, become smart (i.e., live and learn up to their potential). Ripley’s book is about high schools in the United States, Finland, South Korea, and Poland. But, what Ripley wrote resonated with me, as I know it actually will with many who do understand the needs of the gifted, whom I will specifically discuss at the end of this. Here are a few reasons: • Ripley advocates changing university teacher training programs from one of the lowest thresholds for admittance to a threshold no lower than the top third of their high school graduating classes. • She advocates continuing supervision, mentoring and education for the teachers once they are hired to teach. • She advocates letting the teachers decide how to teach, what to use to support those lessons, and how to decide if their students are learning what they’ve been taught. Remember, the teacher continues to be part of a team system that offers support, input, feedback and encouragement to him or her. • She points out that the smartest kids in the world know how to use what they have learned. They know how to apply it and interpret when to apply a concept, thought, idea or skill. Real life. Thinking skills. Reasons why we just learned something. I used to teach elementary school. I joke that I was among the last of the generations of women who thought their only career options were nurse or teacher. I chose teacher because, in my experience at that time, I knew I’d be on my own, make my own decisions, and not be bossed around by say, a doctor (the way nurses were). Remember, I grew up during a time when girls were supposed to understand that the constant use of the male pronouns was understood to mean both male and female. Well, we didn’t actually understand that, but I digress. So, two things have changed mightily since that time. First, smart women have tons of career options, so far fewer of them choose teaching. (Keep in mind that the low pay has been unappealing to men for a long time, and as most men always had the option of any career they wanted, few ever aspired to become teachers compared to women). Second, today’s teachers are micro-managed, told exactly what to teach and how to assess for whether or not their students learned. I assume there have continued to be good teachers who worked around the system, and I applaud them, of course. So, what about gifted children and their needs? When their teachers are smart, creative, and allowed to make decisions based upon the needs of the students in their classes, all students truly do benefit. Ripley is opposed to ability grouping. In many ways, so am I. Almost any topic or concept can be taught at many levels. It’s how you individualize the same topic. It’s how you enable students to work together, choose with whom to work on certain topics – and on different days! It’s the deep understanding, mastery and love of the topics that a smart, well-trained teacher brings to the students. It’s the nerve, creativity, and the “why can’t we do this?” attitude that smart, well-trained teachers bring to their schools when they are empowered to do what needs to be done. Ripley’s book is about high schools. Most people focus on the quality of our high schools and I personally think that it’s the elementary and middle school levels that need the most change. Just putting it out there. So, yes. I liked the book, I liked the investigation into this topic that Ripley did when preparing for the book, and I recommend it.
Review: Fascinating Insight on Worldwide Education - This is a great book for folks who are interested in the state of American public schools, as compared with schools ranked higher than the U.S. in international testing. From the book, I learned about the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which, per Wikipedia, is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and non-member nations of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading. This, as it turns out, is how we find out that students in the U.S. ranked 24th in reading, 28th in science and 36th in math in 2012, in comparison with about 65 participating countries. Apparently, we were 17th, 23rd and 21st, respectively, in these rankings in 2009. And, back in 2000, when all this got started, we were 15th, 16th and 20th, respectively. A trend is obvious here. In 2012, Shanghai, China, was the winner in all three categories, but the author choses South Korea, Poland and Finland as the democratically ruled countries that he trusts best to reflect equality with U.S. social components. Each of these three countries ranks very high in the international testing, each clearly higher than the U.S. The author sets out to find an American high school exchange student for each country. Using the three students, she collects data and experiences to build comparisons. Via these American kids, we get a first-hand view of public high schools in the three countries, plus we get to know the American kids, themselves, pretty well. Pretty cool, huh? There is a wealth of interesting information in each of their stories, which makes it impractical to detail here. So, what I want to do in the rest of this review is to give you some of more interesting tidbits I got along the way from the book. Then, I will go to the author's conclusions as to why U.S. students fall behind students from other countries. Some interesting tidbits: * The Korean public schools are a mess. The kids come primarily to sleep most of the day. Their learning, it turns out, happens mostly after their public schools close for the day. The kids then head out for private tutoring schools, where they may spend another eight or so hours in what sounds like grueling, exhausting "educational" experiences. No wonder the kids sleep during the day. But they do score well in international testing! * Testing for high school seniors in most Asian countries is very, very intense, so intense that the same test is given on the same day for all seniors in the country. Airlines, commuters and businesses are urged to reduce any kinds of noise or distractions during the testing period. But after the results are given, and the kids find out if they are accepted to the best schools or not, this pressure cooker is off, for the most part. In college, the kids do not take their studies that seriously, nor do the professors. No, the pressure is to prepare for the single test in high school, as if the results of it will determine their options for the rest of their lives. * American schools are crazy for sporting events, especially football. Nothing like this happens in any of the other countries that were profiled. There, sports are done via clubs outside of the schools, if at all. This element, in itself, is a huge variation for the American schools, which pride themselves on school spirit, supporting athletic competition. * Most of the higher performing countries are more selective in choosing their teachers. For the most part, the best students in college are selected. In contrast, American high school teachers tend not to be high performers in college. * Countries smaller than the U.S. are in a better position to control the training and development of their public school teachers. In Finland, for example, private high schools are not allowed, nor are charter schools. Finland does not encourage variances in the levels of excellence amongst its schools No, all the Finish schools are to be at the same level of excellence. In the U.S., states control their own training, oversight and curriculum of and for their teachers. And private high schools and charter schools are currently all the rage. * South Korean parents spend a ton of money on private tutoring for their kids, to the point that the Korean government tries to limit the excess. And, one of the most successful leaders of the private tutoring schools has said that he wants to devote his life in the future to the elimination of the private tutoring system. He wants to improve the public schools, instead. At the end of the book, the author gives us some insights into her struggles in writing the book. First, she admits that trying to make sense out of such a complex subject, even involving just three countries vs. the U.S., was overwhelming. Second, she tells us that, as a journalist by profession, she does not normally intend to lead readers to conclusions. She would rather report what she finds, then let readers make their own conclusions. But she seems to be compelled to give us some reasons why high school students in other countries are doing better in the worldwide testing than are American students. Her reasons include: * Students in other countries tend to be more engaged and to work harder. * Parents in other countries are more interested in educational progress than in excellence in sports or the arts or such in their public schools. * Schools in other countries invest far less in technology that does the U.S., which, perhaps, allows them to spend more money on teachers' and principal's salaries, instead. * Other countries have better teachers and principals, overall. * Students in other countries tend to better understand the consequences of failure; students in the U.S. tend to be told that they are doing better than they actually are, compared with students from other countries. * Overall, schools in the better-performing countries are harder than schools in the U.S. And, overall, the students in the other countries learn to have more persistence and drive than their counterparts in the U.S. Personally, I do not find the list above to be earth-shaking or alarming. I do find it educational, so to speak. But as Will Rogers famous remark goes, "The schools ain't what they used to be, and never was." The quest to be the best tends to be a never-ending, frequently redefined endeavor. I also like the adage I heard somewhere that "America produces the worst 16-year-olds and the best 30-year-olds, and no one understands why." In other words, as an educator, myself, I'm in this for the long haul. I can always learn; but I tend to think that no one, anywhere, at any time, has all the answers. American will rise again. I guarantee it!

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #71,369 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #19 in Education Assessment (Books) #20 in Gifted Students Education #21 in History of Education |
| Customer Reviews | 4.5 out of 5 stars 1,906 Reviews |

## Images

![The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71jEJsxtb-L.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Ripley can't cover all possibilities, but she sure gives us food for thought
*by D***F on December 1, 2014*

I recently read Amanda Ripley's "The Smartest Kids in the World and How They Got That Way" and was glad someone did this work. Yes, I knew that advocates for gifted children or advocates for teachers' unions would get their hackles up over many of the points that Ripley made. They might say that clearly she doesn't "understand" the needs of gifted children, blah-blah-blah. Clearly she doesn't understand how "unfair" it would be to keep "normal" people (i.e., those who weren't the best students themselves) out of teaching with her observation that schools must have the smartest and best trained teachers from the population if their students are to do well, become smart (i.e., live and learn up to their potential). Ripley’s book is about high schools in the United States, Finland, South Korea, and Poland. But, what Ripley wrote resonated with me, as I know it actually will with many who do understand the needs of the gifted, whom I will specifically discuss at the end of this. Here are a few reasons: • Ripley advocates changing university teacher training programs from one of the lowest thresholds for admittance to a threshold no lower than the top third of their high school graduating classes. • She advocates continuing supervision, mentoring and education for the teachers once they are hired to teach. • She advocates letting the teachers decide how to teach, what to use to support those lessons, and how to decide if their students are learning what they’ve been taught. Remember, the teacher continues to be part of a team system that offers support, input, feedback and encouragement to him or her. • She points out that the smartest kids in the world know how to use what they have learned. They know how to apply it and interpret when to apply a concept, thought, idea or skill. Real life. Thinking skills. Reasons why we just learned something. I used to teach elementary school. I joke that I was among the last of the generations of women who thought their only career options were nurse or teacher. I chose teacher because, in my experience at that time, I knew I’d be on my own, make my own decisions, and not be bossed around by say, a doctor (the way nurses were). Remember, I grew up during a time when girls were supposed to understand that the constant use of the male pronouns was understood to mean both male and female. Well, we didn’t actually understand that, but I digress. So, two things have changed mightily since that time. First, smart women have tons of career options, so far fewer of them choose teaching. (Keep in mind that the low pay has been unappealing to men for a long time, and as most men always had the option of any career they wanted, few ever aspired to become teachers compared to women). Second, today’s teachers are micro-managed, told exactly what to teach and how to assess for whether or not their students learned. I assume there have continued to be good teachers who worked around the system, and I applaud them, of course. So, what about gifted children and their needs? When their teachers are smart, creative, and allowed to make decisions based upon the needs of the students in their classes, all students truly do benefit. Ripley is opposed to ability grouping. In many ways, so am I. Almost any topic or concept can be taught at many levels. It’s how you individualize the same topic. It’s how you enable students to work together, choose with whom to work on certain topics – and on different days! It’s the deep understanding, mastery and love of the topics that a smart, well-trained teacher brings to the students. It’s the nerve, creativity, and the “why can’t we do this?” attitude that smart, well-trained teachers bring to their schools when they are empowered to do what needs to be done. Ripley’s book is about high schools. Most people focus on the quality of our high schools and I personally think that it’s the elementary and middle school levels that need the most change. Just putting it out there. So, yes. I liked the book, I liked the investigation into this topic that Ripley did when preparing for the book, and I recommend it.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fascinating Insight on Worldwide Education
*by G***E on June 3, 2014*

This is a great book for folks who are interested in the state of American public schools, as compared with schools ranked higher than the U.S. in international testing. From the book, I learned about the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which, per Wikipedia, is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and non-member nations of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading. This, as it turns out, is how we find out that students in the U.S. ranked 24th in reading, 28th in science and 36th in math in 2012, in comparison with about 65 participating countries. Apparently, we were 17th, 23rd and 21st, respectively, in these rankings in 2009. And, back in 2000, when all this got started, we were 15th, 16th and 20th, respectively. A trend is obvious here. In 2012, Shanghai, China, was the winner in all three categories, but the author choses South Korea, Poland and Finland as the democratically ruled countries that he trusts best to reflect equality with U.S. social components. Each of these three countries ranks very high in the international testing, each clearly higher than the U.S. The author sets out to find an American high school exchange student for each country. Using the three students, she collects data and experiences to build comparisons. Via these American kids, we get a first-hand view of public high schools in the three countries, plus we get to know the American kids, themselves, pretty well. Pretty cool, huh? There is a wealth of interesting information in each of their stories, which makes it impractical to detail here. So, what I want to do in the rest of this review is to give you some of more interesting tidbits I got along the way from the book. Then, I will go to the author's conclusions as to why U.S. students fall behind students from other countries. Some interesting tidbits: * The Korean public schools are a mess. The kids come primarily to sleep most of the day. Their learning, it turns out, happens mostly after their public schools close for the day. The kids then head out for private tutoring schools, where they may spend another eight or so hours in what sounds like grueling, exhausting "educational" experiences. No wonder the kids sleep during the day. But they do score well in international testing! * Testing for high school seniors in most Asian countries is very, very intense, so intense that the same test is given on the same day for all seniors in the country. Airlines, commuters and businesses are urged to reduce any kinds of noise or distractions during the testing period. But after the results are given, and the kids find out if they are accepted to the best schools or not, this pressure cooker is off, for the most part. In college, the kids do not take their studies that seriously, nor do the professors. No, the pressure is to prepare for the single test in high school, as if the results of it will determine their options for the rest of their lives. * American schools are crazy for sporting events, especially football. Nothing like this happens in any of the other countries that were profiled. There, sports are done via clubs outside of the schools, if at all. This element, in itself, is a huge variation for the American schools, which pride themselves on school spirit, supporting athletic competition. * Most of the higher performing countries are more selective in choosing their teachers. For the most part, the best students in college are selected. In contrast, American high school teachers tend not to be high performers in college. * Countries smaller than the U.S. are in a better position to control the training and development of their public school teachers. In Finland, for example, private high schools are not allowed, nor are charter schools. Finland does not encourage variances in the levels of excellence amongst its schools No, all the Finish schools are to be at the same level of excellence. In the U.S., states control their own training, oversight and curriculum of and for their teachers. And private high schools and charter schools are currently all the rage. * South Korean parents spend a ton of money on private tutoring for their kids, to the point that the Korean government tries to limit the excess. And, one of the most successful leaders of the private tutoring schools has said that he wants to devote his life in the future to the elimination of the private tutoring system. He wants to improve the public schools, instead. At the end of the book, the author gives us some insights into her struggles in writing the book. First, she admits that trying to make sense out of such a complex subject, even involving just three countries vs. the U.S., was overwhelming. Second, she tells us that, as a journalist by profession, she does not normally intend to lead readers to conclusions. She would rather report what she finds, then let readers make their own conclusions. But she seems to be compelled to give us some reasons why high school students in other countries are doing better in the worldwide testing than are American students. Her reasons include: * Students in other countries tend to be more engaged and to work harder. * Parents in other countries are more interested in educational progress than in excellence in sports or the arts or such in their public schools. * Schools in other countries invest far less in technology that does the U.S., which, perhaps, allows them to spend more money on teachers' and principal's salaries, instead. * Other countries have better teachers and principals, overall. * Students in other countries tend to better understand the consequences of failure; students in the U.S. tend to be told that they are doing better than they actually are, compared with students from other countries. * Overall, schools in the better-performing countries are harder than schools in the U.S. And, overall, the students in the other countries learn to have more persistence and drive than their counterparts in the U.S. Personally, I do not find the list above to be earth-shaking or alarming. I do find it educational, so to speak. But as Will Rogers famous remark goes, "The schools ain't what they used to be, and never was." The quest to be the best tends to be a never-ending, frequently redefined endeavor. I also like the adage I heard somewhere that "America produces the worst 16-year-olds and the best 30-year-olds, and no one understands why." In other words, as an educator, myself, I'm in this for the long haul. I can always learn; but I tend to think that no one, anywhere, at any time, has all the answers. American will rise again. I guarantee it!

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ We Know How It's Done, But We Refuse To Do It
*by G***N on October 27, 2013*

Sometimes I think great teachers represent a kind of genius—a command and love of their subject by which they inspire in students a vision of its power and beauty. But maybe student geniuses simply resonate to a subject that engages their hearts, and even mediocre (or worse) teachers can’t deter them from their quest. For our primary and secondary schools, however, the real question is how we optimize what most students learn, with competent teachers to take them there. Blending extensive data and focused personal stories, Amanda Ripley’s marvelous book suggests that we know more about good teaching and real learning than we may suppose. Real learning means that graduates can “read, solve problems, and communicate what happened on their shift” (p. 5), and that’s for line workers who make the pies you get at McDonald’s. That American employer, and others, aren’t shifting jobs overseas only because of wages and benefits but often because they can’t find high school graduates who can do the work. “Better” jobs demand more; diesel mechanics must know geometry and physics, read blueprints and technical manuals, and understand percentages and ratios. Sales people have to comprehend engineering or chemistry or medicine (e.g. pharmaceutical reps) to communicate with their clients. Finance requires a command not only of markets and regulations but of financial analysis, statistics and probability. Ripley notes the extremely high recent correlation between nations’ educational accomplishments and economic growth, and America is slipping badly. The data to my mind are irrefutable (and, to paraphrase a quote in the book, without the ability to understand and process complex data, in today’s world you’re just another schmuck with an opinion). In language and science we score poorly in relation to almost all other developed nations, but our mathematics outcomes are execrable—in the bottom five of around thirty nations. It’s not about money; we’re second in the world (!) in just one category, per-pupil expense. It’s not about students studying longer. True, Korea’s schooling sounds to me like an industrial-strength nightmare—long school days followed by homework followed by hours in costly private academies followed by more hours of homework. (Korea’s students, says Ripley, spend more time on schoolwork than American kids spend awake.) But Finnish students do less homework than Americans and have far more free time (with much less scheduling and supervision from their parents) while leading the world. Nor is it about the advantages of less diverse cultures or more prosperous families. Race and family background matter, says Ripley—but how much they matter varies greatly, and we’re just dreadful by this measure, too (poor kids in Poland are poorer than poor kids here but do much better in school). Conversely, Norway (with all the “advantages” of Finland and much higher spending) has fallen behind dramatically, now trailing us and all other nations among the fifteen with long-term data. The heart of Ripley’s presentation lies in extended stories of three high-school students: Kim (from Oklahoma, who went to Finland for a school year), Tom (from Pennsylvania, to Poland), and Eric (from Minnesota, to Korea). She corresponded with them and traveled to interview them, their own and their exchange families, and the teachers and education administrators here and in the host communities. The stories and the data frame and interpret each other, clearly and effectively. America’s schools would do well to adopt “best practices” wherever we find them (as American companies do with their competitors), and I would suggest three benchmarks, from the Finns in particular. First, we need very demanding requirements for teachers. In Finland it starts with admission to one of a handful of colleges for teacher training, with admission standards “on the order of MIT” and prestige comparable to admission to med school. Then come six years of training. Once the graduates begin teaching, they have much more accountability for results (national textbook standards and testing) but also much greater autonomy and flexibility in how they do their jobs (after all, their competence and commitment can be presumed). Second, schools, homes, and communities have high expectations for students. ALL students (“tracking” by “ability” turns out to be counter-productive and debilitating). Apart from clinical cognitive disorders, the hypothesis is that every kid can learn. The students see it happening, have a high estimate of themselves and each other (and they respect their teachers’ preparation and competence), and contribute peer pressure (and mutual encouragement) to the hopes their families and schools have for them. Third, every student is expected to—fail. Frequently, but not finally. Nearly everyone finishes high school. (We used to lead the world in graduation rates, but have dropped to around 20th, with a 20% dropout rate). Their diplomas demonstrate their fundamental competencies. But high standards and expectations mean that students have to be told when they’re not measuring up. “If the work is hard, routine failure is the only way to learn.” Then kids also learn to pick themselves (and each other) up, get help, dig in, and make it work. Praise and affirmation are effective only when they are “specific, authentic, and rare”. I tremble to consider the cultural and political obstacles in our way. How can we get past our shibboleth (“hard-wired for inefficiency”, crossed purposes and compromised standards) of local control? How many of our public schools hire people more as coaches than teachers, with a Master’s in Phys. Ed. and (at best) an undergraduate minor in their teaching field? We do have some good teachers here, and Ripley has found a few of them; why can’t we learn from them as well as from other countries? In the book’s most moving story for me, an American primary student asks her teacher why he “gave” her an F in math, and he replies that an F was what she earned. Callous and harsh? Not as he works with her and believes in her, and she responds by doing the homework and forming a study group with other pupils. With a C as her year-end grade and a new sense of her own prowess and potential, she says to her teacher through her tears, “I cannot believe I did this.”

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.hr/products/2237095-the-smartest-kids-in-the-world-and-how-they-got](https://www.desertcart.hr/products/2237095-the-smartest-kids-in-the-world-and-how-they-got)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Croatia*
*Store origin: HR*
*Last updated: 2026-06-20*