Countries with the Best Foreign Language Education

[Cavesa]

To the

Simply not true of western Europe, which is the place i was referring to.

Excuse me, but I don't see where this comes from. Not only Zenmonkey does live in western europe, so does blaurebell and most other posters on this thread. But central europe is not different from western europe much, and you are actually proving my point that it would be in general beneficial to all europeans (and not only) to be more interested in other countries.

And I am not talking only about the Czech Republic, since that doesn't seem like a relevant example to you. My experience from longer stays in France and Spain, between 20 and 30 short stays in half Europe, and talking to quite a lot of various foreingers even here, all that confirms it.

I had a few very interesting conversations about this in France and it is something I am interested in and always read about in the news. Their system tries to give chance to everyone, including poor people. It does, to some extent. And when you speak to someone richer, it seems like what you say is true, and education opportunities are pure égalité. But speak to someone from the poorer background, I was lucky to meet a great girl, medicine student, who was a great example as well as a great person. Coming from a poorer family, where education is not on top of priorities, has tremendous consequences. Not only she didn't have much of support (not only financial), her family was discouraging her and also draining her energy, people she knew outside school were not exactly a study group either. She had trouble with her studies based on the background she came from.

She confirmed that the differences were very real in France. If that is not a western european country, I don't know what is. I don't know, whether French is on your list, LesRonces. If it is, read LeMonde sometimes. It is a problem so obvious the country cannot ignore it and is trying to look for solutions, which mostly fail. But just look at the market with study support. Look at the meritocracy system, which is highly competitive and you simply want all the advantage you can get, and that advantage costs money.

Yes, you can succeed without extra money, if you are extremely gifted and hardworking. But it is simply much simpler and you are much more likely to succeed, if you can pay for the extra classes and tutors, for the extra preparation courses for exams, for extra books, for internet based resources. If only you could imagine what business grows around medicine studies, but that is just the example I know the best. There are almost no students from poor families at the faculty.

It doesn't matter whether the academic area we are talking about is studying medicine, maths, literature, economy or learning a language. It still applies.

From my experience, it can include a lot of translation to the foreign language, any other types of grammar exercises than just fill ins, and our drilling games were better than standing up endlessly so early in the morning .

You forget that Prussians invented the German school system and they did not believe in fun Besides, competition? Trying to get us out of our apathetic slumber was no mean feat and was usually achieved by a whole lot of shouting and threats, rather than any sort of "psychological" method of trying to motivate us. But then, I'm mainly speaking about East Germany here, in the 90s we didn't have an awful lot of good teachers left and they weren't hiring any new ones either because like 25% of the population left from one year to the next. And of course the teachers had a sort of "no future" attitude, because any school might close due to lack of students and then they would be unemployed without the possibility of finding a new job. In a working class town that turned into an unemployed town from one year to the next! Bleak times, bleak times. Sounds like in your parts you weren't hit so hard?

I totally know what you mean with the communicative approach ... my Spanish still suffers from that malady, although I'm now trying to counteract that with grammar grammar and more grammar.

Yes, Prussians were an interesting element in central Europe. It is pretty clear they were doing lots of things right. Even though shouting is something horrible in language classes. And often not that efficient either.

Hit in what way?
Overall amount and quality of teachers was horrible. Back then, it was even not uncommon for Russian teachers to just switch to English and be one lesson before their students. Considering the fact they had often been bad even at Russian teaching, imagine their English teaching skills. Language learning before the revolution was not considered useful by the population (what for, if you cannot get out and the foreign stuff in), it was considered dangerous by the regime, and specifically Russian learning was one of the symbols of the occupation and the whole 40 years taking tragedy, so being bad at it was more a proof of character, than an educational failure.

There were few learning resources, teachers often had to make them, or search wherever possible. Before the internet.

There were very few natives or people with language skills in general. In some ways, the 90's were an era of lots of open possibilities, it was in some ways easier to start something then these days. And despite the fact I am grateful I spent only my childhood on the 90's, one idea would be tempting about it. Back in ninetees, my languages would have gotten me a great job (great for those times and economy), no degree needed, no more skills demanded before starting, no problem with CVs or interviews. You just knew a bit of English or German, and you were a star.

No, there was no massive escape of people, because we didn't have anyone waiting for us with open arms and borders this way, we didn't get connected to a well functioning country with close historical ties to us. People are leaving now, and have been for a long time, slowly but steadily. It is getting more and more obvious, healthcare being just one of the most visible areas. Czechs, especially the generation that is now around 50, failed at improving the country enough, missed many chances, and destroyed a lot of others, and failed to change the society enough in certain ways. As a result, this country fails in competition for high quality people for the economy. This still wouldn't be enough for most people who are considering leaving. If it was just about money, everyone would be gone, so people obviously want to stay. But there is simply no future. Promises are being broken, differences between us and the better countries do not get erased, a part of the population actively hates anyone who isn't as lazy as them. And their usual ideas of solution to escape of brains and workers are forbidding people to leave, or making young people more miserable, or attacking the more successful people and demotivating them from activity. It is not about politics, that is just a symptom, it wouldn't work without a part of the population.

This is actually one of the reasons, why foreign language education in public schools is not a priority. Officially it is, ok. But in reality no. The teachers' salaries are horrible, the bureaucracy always growing, the horrible reformed Maturita (highschool final exam) is a huge waste of money that damages good quality schools much more than it helps the bad ones. And just the pure idea of improving the whole school system by changing the final exam is illogical. And I don't even remember how many ministers we've had, all of them wanting to entry history books and most of them with no relevant experience.

The only language that is being promoted all the time, apart from occasional newspaper articles about job finding, is English. Because the English speaking countries are quite far and not that easy to get to, I'd guess. Not knowing other european languages, especially German, is for many people the main reason to stay, despite the conditions. Living in Prague is great, in many ways better than in most similarly sized european cities. And there is basically no unemployment in the city, and the salaries are a little bit less horrible than in the rest of the country. But look at the small towns in poor regions by the German border.

One could say, that those poor people are to blame, that they should work on themselves and get out. Well, they should. But I don't think we can fully blame someone who has no money for guided privated education, and at the same time is definitely not too academically gifted to make it on their own.

[MrPenguin]

Why would social background matter in this day and age where information is available to anybody ? The drive of the person to actually become and remain interested in a language is the only factor that matters. Social status, money, education etc is all irrelevant. Yes it's true that people from 'higher' status backgrounds are more likely to learn languages to higher levels but that is despite their social status not because of it. It's an indicator of desire to learn but not an absolute. What i mean by this is that anyone from any walk of life can achieve the same in their language learning irrespective of social status or wealth.

While this may be true of an individual the fact remains that the influence of background significantly drives academic achievement. Some people become famous mathematicians despite a very hard start and difficult economic or social background. But despite that innate potential - more often than not hard times will knock the math or language out of one's grasp. It isn't just drive - while it might be the most important factor for some situations - many people learn languages as accidental tourists in the language landscape.
I was learning French at the age of 6 months because of my privilege to be born to a family that traveled and that had a rich language background. 95%+ of the people from my country will not have the opportunity to travel to France for extended periods of time that assisted in the mastery of the language.

But it is just a fact that information is not equally available to all...

Simply not true of western Europe, which is the place i was referring to.

The information may be available, in a literal sense, due to the internet and libraries, but that means nothing if you don't have the necessary skillset to avail yourself of it. A couple of examples of necessary skills: more than just simple, functional literacy; English literacy; a reasonably large vocabulary in your native language and English; knowledge of how to search for and prioritize information. A person who hasn't read even a single book for pleasure in their entire life, and who has struggled through basic education, is much less likely to be able to find, much less understand and make use of all the information available to them, a skillset which is strongly correlated with social background.

[zenmonkey]

Why would social background matter in this day and age where information is available to anybody ? The drive of the person to actually become and remain interested in a language is the only factor that matters. Social status, money, education etc is all irrelevant. Yes it's true that people from 'higher' status backgrounds are more likely to learn languages to higher levels but that is despite their social status not because of it. It's an indicator of desire to learn but not an absolute. What i mean by this is that anyone from any walk of life can achieve the same in their language learning irrespective of social status or wealth.

While this may be true of an individual the fact remains that the influence of background significantly drives academic achievement. Some people become famous mathematicians despite a very hard start and difficult economic or social background. But despite that innate potential - more often than not hard times will knock the math or language out of one's grasp. It isn't just drive - while it might be the most important factor for some situations - many people learn languages as accidental tourists in the language landscape.
I was learning French at the age of 6 months because of my privilege to be born to a family that traveled and that had a rich language background. 95%+ of the people from my country will not have the opportunity to travel to France for extended periods of time that assisted in the mastery of the language.

But it is just a fact that information is not equally available to all...

Simply not true of western Europe, which is the place i was referring to.

And yet you never mentioned it.
And still not true, and shows your privilege.

I work with kids in France as a volunteer and while my house has high speed Internet, several working computers that my kids have access to, a library that we go to almost weekly - other children for a variety of cost and social pressures do not have the leisure to access or use the same information that my kids do.

Certain schools are better equipped in certain cities and the quality of the technical education, access to the web, just differs from age and social groups. This is really simple stuff, I worked in Internet marketing and it just is that the access and use of Internet are going to differ significantly from rural Poland to the city of London. Content languages, norms of use .... I think you assume that since it is low cost and low barrier to access people can "just use it". But the fact remains that they don't and those factors are related to "availability" that goes beyond "they have smartphones too".

When we talk about access / availability - the words might be referring to things. Yes, physically the barriers to access are more equal nowadays but the capacity and will to use them for language learning varies tremendously.

[blaurebell]

No, there was no massive escape of people, because we didn't have anyone waiting for us with open arms and borders this way, we didn't get connected to a well functioning country with close historical ties to us.

Very interesting to hear about all those differences! It seems to me that what was happening to East Germany within 2-3 years, is now happening at a slower rate for you. It's awful that the Czech republic is bleeding out slowly now, but for us this was a much more violent process. A lot of East German cities look like a post-apocalyptic wasteland with whole streets depopulated, because it wasn't a slow process and there was no time to adjust. It took the East German economy 25 years to recover from the reunification and what the West Germans did "to help". And the economy only works now with 25% less population and only in the bigger cities. It was pretty bad in the 90s even in the cities, lots of unemployment, families pulled apart because one parent could only find work in the West, the other in the East - my family was like that -, people having to leave home whether they wanted to or not. And a lot of people from that generation never even developed a proper notion of home, because their home disappeared when the wall came down. Not to mention a whole generation of mentally scarred people who grew up in the transition years and never really understood why all their values were supposed to be wrong now. They typically reacted by becoming the worst racists, which of course wasn't fun for me as "the Russian kid". And I can't even blame them for it, because it was just a coping mechanism to deal with a world they couldn't possibly understand.

"Open arms" would be overstating it too, there is lots of prejudice against East Germans in the West which is why I was trying to get rid of my accent for years. I felt like I was living in exile for a long time even though I was glad to be escaping my hometown. That's ultimately also why I left Germany. Might as well leave if they don't want me there anyway. Although of course foreigners aren't really welcomed anywhere else either. And West Germany was probably still the closest thing to home I ever had. There simply is no winning for my generation.

The fact that it's not true. The whole western world is glued to the internet 24/7 on their phones. Just because lots of people choose not to take advantage of information for whatever reason, let's not pretend they don't have the opportunity to.

Of course there is always an element of personal responsibility in all this and a lot of people *could* potentially do more with their opportunities, but frankly humans are not really in the habit of always choosing the most difficult path for themselves. Choosing a life in which you will have to fight against the prejudice of your parents, your social surroundings and every privileged person out there is not exactly enticing and you must have some sort of reason to do so. People who actually free themselves from the limitations of their upbringing are usually those who have never fit into that world anyway and were told that they were too weak, to clumsy, too intelligent, too weird, etc. That inability to belong gives them an incentive to break out of these parameters. If you simply fit into that world and if you are happy in it, why would you even want to have more for yourself? The other reason to try to escape is if life is simply unsustainable in your situation, i.e. you're starving and don't know how to survive otherwise. Welfare is a luxury. I know a number of people who didn't grow up with that luxury and who had times when they simply went hungry as kids, or lived in a one room flat as a family of 6. People from the Eastern block, or from Latin America. They used every opportunity they could get and worked hard to get somewhere despite their situation, usually with amazing results. There always has to be a reason though, otherwise people won't bother, it's as simple as that.

The excuse of 'opportunity' is one people use to justify their own lack of education. Oh well i can't read properly because i didn't have opportunity.

That's a pretty harsh judgement. To be honest I actually think that most people don't even need an education and are better off with the school system being as useless as it is. Even the best education doesn't make people happier or more fulfilled and the unhappiest people are usually those who understand this world too well. Don't forget, ignorance is bliss! I would have gladly exchanged my intellectual capabilities for a disposition to be happy even with "my limitations". I'm too stubborn for that though and simply can't accept it when people tell me "You CAN'T do X", it gives me the urge to prove them wrong. And that's a guarantee for a continual struggle instead of a blissful life. I think everyone makes their choices though and if other people manage to find some sort of happiness in their lives, even when they can't read properly, that's perfectly alright in my opinion. I have friends who never read and they are good people who love their children and live happy lives. They aren't stupid and they have other wisdom to share that you won't find in books. Sometimes they simply fill their lives with other stuff, like photography or music. The most important question is: Why would I even put them on the spot and have them justify themselves with regards to their education? Does it really matter all that much?

Real education starts with you. Nobody can teach those unwilling to learn. If people are more addicted to social media than are interested in literature then that's not opportunity that's a problem with society in general.

True, but with that you're putting all the blame on the individual. It's basically victim shaming. The society puts certain people in a position where it's hard for them to get education and a better position in society. Most people accept where life pushes them and have very little inclination to do anything other than what's expected of them, for better or for worse. They simply fulfil their roles and that's it. This also applies to people who go to university and take an office job, just because it's expected of them, although they might be much happier as carpenters. The problem is that we're not educating people to "have a choice" in all this. That's not what societies do. People are supposed to fulfil their roles in this society and any kind of social mobility is usually discouraged. Putting the blame for that on people who are supposedly "unwilling" to change their situation is somewhat unfair. It's also a good method to make sure that the society which does this to these people will never have to change, because the individual people are the main problem in that worldview, not the society. It's the other way round though.

Besides, the internet is fairly new technology, be patient with it and its role in society. In just a few years it has given us access to a huge library of books and movies / series, language learning content and so on. People are still unable to make proper use of this, because they didn't grow up with it. Wait ten or twenty years and people will stop wasting their time with social media and constant communication. People are already getting sick of technology and going back to analog pursuits, paper books, records, film photography. It's only a matter of time until we find a "grown up" less addicted fashion of dealing with all these communication and time-wasting opportunities. It usually takes a generation or two to develop a "sane" way of dealing with new technology. Just look at what the weaving loom did to a couple of generations of workers! Do you think a technology like the internet with such insane potential can be integrated into society in a day or two? I've been watching the internet pretty closely for 20 years now and we've barely even scratched the surface of its potential. It's still evolving and unstable, prone to fashions. 15 years ago I also would have paid any price for a device like a smart phone. When it finally arrived I waited years before I got one, because it's not "grown up" technology yet. Even after a few years it's still only a fancy toy. It's getting there slowly, but we still have a few years to wait. I really believe that it has a potential to transform our society, but we will have to wait until everyone finally "gets it", until the artificially imposed limitations to the technology are lifted and so on. It will probably take another 20 years.

[MrPenguin]

To be honest I actually think that most people don't even need an education and are better off with the school system being as useless as it is. Even the best education doesn't make people happier or more fulfilled and the unhappiest people are usually those who understand this world too well. Don't forget, ignorance is bliss! I would have gladly exchanged my intellectual capabilities for a disposition to be happy even with "my limitations".

The science shows that there is no correlation between education level and happiness. Knowing more or less will not make you more or less happy. Your high levels of education or knowledge are not likely to be the cause of your unhappiness, nor is the lower educational attainment of your friends likely to be the cause of their happiness. "Ignorance is bliss" may or may not have truth to it (I'm leaning more towards the latter), but you should keep in mind another saying: "the grass is always greener on the other side".

Source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents ... n_may_not/

[Cavesa]

To the

Simply not true of western Europe, which is the place i was referring to.

Excuse me, but I don't see where this comes from.

The fact that it's not true. The whole western world is glued to the internet 24/7 on their phones. Just because lots of people choose not to take advantage of information for whatever reason, let's not pretend they don't have the opportunity to.

The excuse of 'opportunity' is one people use to justify their own lack of education. Oh well i can't read properly because i didn't have opportunity. Nonsense. People flock to the world's biggest bookstore to do most of their shopping - it's like throwing someone in Waterstones and they come out with a jigsaw and saying they don't have the opportunity to read because their parents never encouraged it.

Real education starts with you. Nobody can teach those unwilling to learn. If people are more addicted to social media than are interested in literature then that's not opportunity that's a problem with society in general.

Libraries and schools are open to all and the internet is available to anybody who has a phone or lives near a library (ie, pretty much everyone).

To be sure here, i'm talking about western developed Europe - UK, France, Germany etc.

The poorest of the poor - those on welfare - STILL have smartphones, internet, TV, libraries.. Just walk around and take a look.

As I wrote, I agree it is partially their mistake, but I don't think you take into account several factors.
1.Even the Italian (and that is still a bit language) internet not as flooded with resources as the English one. So much for everyone having the same possibilities.

2.These are two terms, western europe and the western world. And not knowing the difference is a problem. The Western world is much bigger and even majority of Eastern Europe is part of it. And of course Central Europe is part of it, and it must be differenciated from Eastern Europe. Actually, Central Europe has much more in common with Western than with Eastern.

Basically, telling someone from Central Europe "but I am talking about the developed Western Europe" is offensive, arrogant, and ignorant. The more that I am describing what I've learnt about several countries, including those you cannot just offensively not include in western Europe, while you keep extrapolating from the UK to half the continent. Just travel a bit in Italy, France, or Spain, talk with the people. No offence meant, but I think you are really demonstrating why more languages, more history, geography, and in general more education is needed in schools. And it must be obligatory. And that is one of the main reasons why I want my children to have a different citizenship, and hopefully get it myself. Not because they would actually get that many advantages, apart from bigger salaries (if they actually get the job in the countries that have the "western" label but suffer economically). But noone will offend them this way. No ignorant brit will treat them as second rate europeans. This is the same kind of stuff as the people who ask czechs or poles whether we know what a dishwasher is or whether we have electricity.

Since you judge people for lack of education and not being interested in it, not reading enough, not learning enough, perhaps you should be a good example and actually educate yourself.I recommend for example this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya55Q-WdIrQ as just a tiny start.

3.I agree that "the poor and uneducated" are partially to blame, as many are unwilling to do anything. And that the general state of the society concerning education and interests is not good at all. But what you seem not to realize are some of the disadvantages of certain parts of the population and the fact that the school system is meant to help them overcome those. It's like saying every kid can learn to swim, because there are pools in every town. Sure. But kids whose parents never take them there are unlikely to go on their own or even know there is a swimming pool. That's why many schools take the whole class there, so that every kid has the chance to learn a bit, or at least know there is such a thing and can be useful.

When it comes to school, we are talking about people between 6-19 years of age. Are you really blaming them for not knowing better than their parents example?

And how are they supposed to look for something they don't know exists? You know, I cannot imagine 12 years old me learning on my own on the internet either, had there been such a thing and all the opportunities back then, and I was an exceptionally independent, motivated, and intelligent learner, most people are not like that. Just look on all the adults who are motivated and willing (and come from the countries that are on your tiny list of "countries I talk respectfully about"), they still fail. They are willing, motivated, but still often fall to the trap of learning just with Duolingo and similar stuff, never progressing further. It is not so easy.

And libraries? From what I've seen (and again in those western european countries, since you look on everything not fitting the very narrow definition with disdain), the offer of language learning materials vary and tends not to be big. I would guess this part is not a priority in the tight budget of public libraries. And the librarians have no clue about language learning.

[Cavesa]

Blaurebell, thanks for an extremely interesting insight in this part of your history. It is something that doesn't get discussed or presented much.

[quote=Very interesting to hear about all those differences! It seems to me that what was happening to East Germany within 2-3 years, is now happening at a slower rate for you. It's awful that the Czech republic is bleeding out slowly now, but for us this was a much more violent process. A lot of East German cities look like a post-apocalyptic wasteland with whole streets depopulated, because it wasn't a slow process and there was no time to adjust. It took the East German economy 25 years to recover from the reunification and what the West Germans did "to help". And the economy only works now with 25% less population and only in the bigger cities. It was pretty bad in the 90s even in the cities, lots of unemployment, families pulled apart because one parent could only find work in the West, the other in the East - my family was like that -, people having to leave home whether they wanted to or not. And a lot of people from that generation never even developed a proper notion of home, because their home disappeared when the wall came down. Not to mention a whole generation of mentally scarred people who grew up in the transition years and never really understood why all their values were supposed to be wrong now. They typically reacted by becoming the worst racists, which of course wasn't fun for me as "the Russian kid". And I can't even blame them for it, because it was just a coping mechanism to deal with a world they couldn't possibly understand.

"Open arms" would be overstating it too, there is lots of prejudice against East Germans in the West which is why I was trying to get rid of my accent for years. I felt like I was living in exile for a long time even though I was glad to be escaping my hometown. That's ultimately also why I left Germany. Might as well leave if they don't want me there anyway. Although of course foreigners aren't really welcomed anywhere else either. And West Germany was probably still the closest thing to home I ever had. There simply is no winning for my generation.

Well, we got different problems after the revolution. There were lots of opportunities open to people, but those who had some money and at least half relevant experience were usually former communists or criminals, since everyone else had been kept from education and opportunities to make money for more than survival. And some of the western countries didn't purely help either. Germany, France, the UK took the opportunity of cheap workforce, and at the beginning truly improved the economy by investing, but it was really not so innocent. Even now, they send huge profits home and keep the employees poor, compared to employees doing the same jobs just as well in Germany. Foreign companies took the opportunity of the new market, as they had the money and knowhow. 90's introduced troubles we cannot solve now on our own. Not only because of the incompetence of part of the population and politicians, who are sometimes even nostalgic, because the old times didn't require personal responsibility and competition.

But the EU hasn't helped enough either and I am definitely not talking about subventions. We hoped to get better legislative and economy, to get the same opportunities, to improve the standard of living, to finally get rid of the stigma that LesRonces demonstrates so well. Well, it is obviously not a priority. The EU still gives us a lot, at least the option to leave and get better salary and better quality goods elsewhere (btw yesterday, news published the results of a government funded comparation of quality of the same products in several countries. The results didn't surprise anyone, Germans, with their higher salaries, get cheaper and better good than us.)

When I was young, I was annoyed by everyone parroting how great German was because of the money you can earn with it. And while I still don't agree that such reasons suffice to learn a language well, I simply see they were right. What we need, is for thousands and thousands of people to learn German and simply act the way Eastern Germans did 25 years ago. The German economy is full of opportunities for hard working people. Until employers of Czech branches of companies don't flood their German counterparts with CVs and keep getting the jobs en masse, nothing is going to change here.

The healthcare is already suffering this. Our problems and desperate situation wasn't, isn't, and won't be a priority until there are very little slaves left. That is the most obvious examples.

[Tillumadoguenirurm]

To the

Libraries and schools are open to all and the internet is available to anybody who has a phone or lives near a library (ie, pretty much everyone).

The poorest of the poor - those on welfare - STILL have smartphones, internet, TV, libraries.

No it's not, and no not everyone have smartphones, internet, tv and libraries. I agree with you in large part, but to quote yourself , "it's simply not true". But maybe that's not the sort of people you people are talking about.

[Cavesa]

To the

Libraries and schools are open to all and the internet is available to anybody who has a phone or lives near a library (ie, pretty much everyone).

The poorest of the poor - those on welfare - STILL have smartphones, internet, TV, libraries.

No it's not, and no not everyone have smartphones, internet, tv and libraries. I agree with you in large part, but to quote yourself , "it's simply not true". But maybe that's not the sort of people you people are talking about.

Thanks, another voice from a country that cannot be disregarded in this discussion

Exactly. Not everyone has internet even these days. Not every small town has a library, and not every library carries language learning resources. The situation of people who have such resources but don't know how to use them ( which I insist is often not entirely their fault, and that is where schools schould help) is more common these days, as these tools spread and become cheaper. But there still is a part of population that simply cannot afford that.

[WalkingAlone13]

To be honest I actually think that most people don't even need an education and are better off with the school system being as useless as it is. Even the best education doesn't make people happier or more fulfilled and the unhappiest people are usually those who understand this world too well. Don't forget, ignorance is bliss! I would have gladly exchanged my intellectual capabilities for a disposition to be happy even with "my limitations".

The science shows that there is no correlation between education level and happiness. Knowing more or less will not make you more or less happy. Your high levels of education or knowledge are not likely to be the cause of your unhappiness, nor is the lower educational attainment of your friends likely to be the cause of their happiness. "Ignorance is bliss" may or may not have truth to it (I'm leaning more towards the latter), but you should keep in mind another saying: "the grass is always greener on the other side".

Source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents ... n_may_not/

I think this is a very narrow perspective. Of course someone that know's a lot could be happy or not, likewise with someone that does not know a lot. I still feel that education can indeed be linked to higher levels of happiness. In the UK, for example, the current fees for university are around £9, 250 per year. The average degree course will be four years. There are many professions that legally require you to first go to uni. If I wanted to have a certain profession that required I first go to uni (I always have), I have no option but to get myself at least 50-60k in debt (We get interest on loans, because the current government loves us so much).
If, after all of that, I can no longer pursue said profession, and would rather something else, the likelihood is, I just would not be able to, unless I would prefer the same level of debt on top of the current one. In which case I would definitely not be living a particular happy life. I remember some studies being done in the UK, asking how many people were actually happy in their profession and the vast majority said no. A lot were actually depressed, but when asked whether they would change or why they have not changed, it was because of the debt they would be in. So a lot of people end up staying in a job they hate for their entire lives because they simply cannot change it.

In countries such as Germany or Finland, where university education is free. I can fully imagine that the numbers stuck in professions that they dislike are far fewer, because the option is there for them to retrain, even if they liked their current profession. So I think the correlation between happiness and education is linked.