EU SITE PRESENTS ROSY POLAND (high level of a secondary education)

This EU-linked site seems to present a highly postiive image of Poland. Along with Czechs and Slovenes 90% of Poles have completed a secondary education -- allegedly the highest level in the EU. Your comments, reaction?

eupedia.com/poland/trivia.shtml

they don't have much choice, do they ?

Where is the surprise here? Education in Poland is obligatory till 18 and secondary schools are free for all. If someone is not totally dumb and not make the same class ten times then for sure is able to get some kind of secondary education.

PS. those economy data from that site are outdated

Completing secondary education isn't the same thing as obtaining the Matura - so it's meaningless.

Meaningless is to big word... secondary school means also technical schools which goal is to give some practical ability. I'm not sure if Matura makes so much difference for let say a mechanic or a barber...

The UNICEF report on childrens well being is indicative of how ridiculous surveys like this can be.

UK and USA come out badly on the overall wealth report, mainly because many children are below that countries average wage; of course when you look at the actual material wealth for UK/US and then its completely reversed. Having the population all equally poor is judged just as good as having them all equally rich, but having a population where the rich and poor are relatively(in absolute terms) rich is dismissed as 'bad'. That stupid.

Another issue, they use the number of books in a household to determine child well being. Books... you know those things they used to print the last century before computers replaced them

Another thing, having unemployed parents is market as a negative. So the UK scores badly, because having children while unemployed is in reality (in the UK) a better financial state to be in than having a job (plus staying at home while looking after your children is surely better than abandoning them ??). The fact is unemployment can be a comfortable life of baby making rather than abject poverty in some countries.

Health and safety has other issues; in some countries like the UK, parents refuse to immunize their children because the diseases are considered so rare that the vaccination is perceived as more dangerous. Child infant mortality in the UK is so bad because 50% or births are by recent immigrants from much poorer nations with a lower level of health.

That makes no sense. If you have no job, a partner with no job and several kids to support, you are worse off than being one person alone with no job.

No, if the government gives you a house and an income that exceeds what you can earn by working then of course unemployment is a better option.

There a a very large number of people in the UK who swear by this concept. To much anger from working parents of course.

At present, the more children you have them more the government gives you, although the new government is promising to limit a families income from benefits to £25K per year (which not taxable of course). Average wage is £27k. A single unemployed person gets about £70 per week plus their rent.

Well, most governments do not do that. What people get from the government is far less than what they get working.

In the UK, it's an accepted career choice among those at the bottom of society to become baby machines.