To begin with, I agree 100% with your basic premise that the U.S. would be better off if more of its citizens were more aware of the world at large. That being said, I have three quibbles with your argument:

1) Not all Americans are or have been undergraduates. To say all New Zealand undergrads have passports and then to compare that to 20% of all Americans is misleading. How many current or former American undergrads have passports? It's probably a considerably higher percentage.

2) Much of American higher education is subsidized by the government, albeit not completely. California's state school system is a particularly standout example here: the quality of the schools is excellent while the price is really low (something akin to $4k/year). Moreover, while it's true that the U.K. completely pays for one's college education, isn't it also true that, due to some rigorous testing system, a smaller percentage of Britons are permitted to go to college? Here, at least in theory, college is available to all.

3) Travel abroad for Americans is more difficult than for, say, Europeans, due to our relative geographic isolation. Sure, Canada and Mexico are close by, and worthy places to visit (although, honestly, how much broader does your perspective really get after a semester in Toronto?), but after that, we have to contend with two oceans. It's not so simple as crossing the Chunnel and buying a Eurorail pass.

Posted by: alex at May 6, 2004 11:07 AM

Let's look at those points one by one.

1) You're (corrected that) right, I was kinda comparing apples to oranges. So lets spread it out a bit..If all undergrads in New Zealand have passports and travel, and 20% of all Americans have passports, I will, for arguments sake, claim that 20% of undergrads then too have passports. Granted it's not a terribly scientific way of doing it, but "20% of all" is a bulls**t stat anyway since the only stats that were studied were yearly passport applications, they did the math to come up with 20%. It comes down to the relative difference in traveler counts. The same article suggested that by 2010 every British citizen will take two holidays a year. I don't think that would be the same here.

2) In the UK, the testing creates a caste like educational system whereby lower scorers can often choose to go to trade schools as opposed to a liberal arts school. What I found interesting is that those entering university usually knew what they wanted to do before they get actually got there, unlike our Anthro/Philo majors. Any UK people, please correct me.

3) This is why I suggest simply greater domestic travel. What we've learned from Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie is that Beverly Hills socialites can learn a lot from a Arkansas farm family. That family learned a lot in return. The goal here is broadening your horizons, whether its international travel, domestic travel, or the International House of Pancakes and their wide world of syrups.

Posted by: davidissimo at May 6, 2004 11:29 AM

Being a victim, er, beneficiary, of the British education system at a couple of points in my life, I'd like to add that undergraduate tuition at LSE is £1125/year. At the School of Oriental and African Studies it's £1150/year (and that extra 25 pounds definitely gets you less in the way of services but more interaction with angry young liberals).

I'd also like to add that, although the British might be more well-traveled than Americans, they replaced the lemon flavored Starburst with blackcurrant, which completely ass.

Posted by: Anar at May 6, 2004 12:07 PM

The lack of a passport does not imply that someone in North America is not well-traveled. Americans, Canadians and Mexicans do not need passports to visit each other's countries (although, in this post 9-11 world, it gets difficult without one). And, all three countries are physically large and culturally diverse.

Posted by: tom at May 6, 2004 04:28 PM

Americans, Canadians and Mexicans don't need passports per se, but when traveling to Mexico, without a passport you are suggested to carry a birth certificate and two other forms of ID. Much of my wife's family travels back and forth from Mexico and you should see the megile (pronounced Me - gilla) of information they need to travel with because they don't have passports.

As for Canada, it depends on how they are feeling. Last time I went to Windsor, my drivers license wasn't enough for the border guard and they had me pay for a temporary visa-type thing. On purchasing my 'right-to-gamble' ticket, they informed me that this only meant that I had entered the country and was no guarantee that I would be allowed back into the U.S.. Clearly I was allowed back, but they told me that had I used a passport, it wouldn't have been an issue. The 12 people I was smuggling in my trunk not withstanding.

Re: The cultural diversity of this great land of ours.

I agree 100%. More people should see it, that's all.

Posted by: davidissimo at May 6, 2004 04:44 PM

I haven't traveled to Canada much since 9-11, but I used to go frequently. 95% of the time, the immigration people would ask you your citizenship and that was it. The other 5% they would get really nasty and ask for ID. A driver's license always sufficed.

Posted by: tom at May 6, 2004 05:13 PM

When I applied for my passport I was rejected. Something about being associated with a guy who calls himself "davidissimo". No... wait... that was when I applied to be in the Cool Kids' Club. Voting for Howard Dean in the primary got my passport application rejected.

Posted by: joshuabess at May 6, 2004 06:11 PM

Maybe it's because we're brown, or maybe it's because we drive into Canada over the Peace Bridge by Niagara Falls, but my family always takes passports to Canada. And we always get asked for them.

What's the deal with the temporary visa thing? That seems nuts. One of my friends had to get that once and was convinced it was a scam because it was some really odd amount, like $13.27.

Posted by: Anar at May 7, 2004 08:17 AM