9

I am constantly told "funner" is not a word. Even Google auto corrects. Yet "funner" is used very often in spoken English with people I meet.

Is funner a word? If not why?

What causes it to not be a word?

herisson
  • 81,803
Whitecat
  • 193
  • 2
    'Funner' is never used in spoken English with people I meet. Although I've sometimes heard:'Me and John went to t'cinema last week' (or a close facsimile). The latter would probably be marked wrong in an English language exam. I think the former might, too. Different standards are applied, rightly or wrongly, in different arenas. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:07
  • Again, the final arbiter is usually agreed to be the OED. If it's not there, claiming it's a word is considered courageous at the very least. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:28
  • 5
    Some people may agree the OED is the final arbiter. Others know that there is no such animal. – Colin Fine Nov 16 '13 at 14:05
  • @Colin Fine: The other major viewpoint is given eloquently by Matt Эллен in the 'What are the criteria to adopt new words into English' thread: 'For a phrase to be adopted into a language, enough people have to start using it. There is no set of criteria beyond popularity ... For a phrase to be put into a dictionary, that's a different matter.' The question this throws up is 'how many?' I'm not going to accept Kaz's 'myself and my son'. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 20:01
  • The question 'what exactly constitutes a word?' is addressed at Wordwizard here, but no unequivocal answer is arrived at. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 19 '13 at 22:29
  • @EdwinAshworth +1 for t'cinema.. May I ask if you've recently taken your whippet for a walk up t'moor? Ideally sporting a flat-cap whilst doing so! :) – Brad Dec 06 '13 at 23:15
  • @Brad Sounds like Yorkshire mischief to me. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 07 '13 at 14:28
  • 1
    M-W: adjective; sometimes funner; sometimes funnest – fixer1234 May 08 '17 at 00:43

5 Answers5

7

The AHDEL has this USAGE NOTE:

The use of fun as an attributive adjective, as in a fun time, a fun place, probably originated in a playful reanalysis of the use of the word in sentences such as It is fun to ski, where fun has the syntactic function of adjectives such as amusing or enjoyable. The usage became popular in the 1950s and 1960s, though there is some evidence to suggest that it has 19th-century antecedents, but it can still raise eyebrows among traditionalists. The day may come when this usage is entirely unremarkable, but writers may want to avoid it in more formal contexts.

So fun can hardly be called a central adjective even though it is here conceded to have an existence as an adjective. Thus, arguments that 'funner' and 'funnest' must therefore be acceptable cannot be taken as read - 'merest' exists, but not 'merer'.

The best one can say is that some people accept funner and funnest as allowable words and others don't, that both schools have pretty good arguments on their side, and that the supporters of the usages will almost certainly come out on top in a few years.

  • Nice answer. I like it. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 23:03
  • "mere" is not an ordinary adjective because it doesn't support the use "[noun] is mere". There is no reason why it should form a superlative-like form, yet we have it. "merest" does not mean "most mere"; its is just "mere" dressed up as a superlative. It looks like "fun" similarly has an exceptional status in the socio-economically preferred dialect of English. Use as an adjective is allowed, but not a fully-fledged one in some sense. People who do not adhere to that dialect simply apply the straightforward rules in forming the comparative and superlative. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:34
  • It seems that we need "merest" even though it means the same thing as "mere" because the superlative form legitimizes the isolation of a single item: "the merest whisper" and so on. "the merest whisper" doesn't mean "the whisper which is most mere"; it is only a trick. "the merest whisper wakes him" means exactly the same thing as "merely a whisper wakes him" or "a mere whisper wakes him". If we want to use "the", we need the superlative form since "the mere whisper" is ungrammatical. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:49
  • I have trouble accepting mere as an adjective in the first place; I mentioned it here only to argue against claims for uniform behaviour. 'A mere youth' is 'a member of that virtually helpless, powerless, insignificant, naive... '(perhaps I'm laying this on a bit thick) 'group, youths'. Mere modifies the whole class of which our 'youth' is a member. It's certainly non-semantically-predicative (Who is mere?!) and there's no noun around that it can be sensibly claimed to be modifying. Really, it's a pragmatic marker, a comment by the speaker on the situation. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 00:00
6

Yet "funner" is used very often in spoken English with people I meet.

This means that it is a word. Just like "homie" is a word.

Words don't have to be used often to be words. For instance, "cryptosporidium" is a word which is used less often by the people you meet than "funner".

Yet, the anchorwoman of your six o'clock news show would probably use "cryptosporidium" when appropriate, while avoiding "funner" in favor of "more fun".

For some reason, "funner" is a disfavored in what my linguistics professor used to call the "socio-economically preferred dialect", which is basically the educationally corrected language used by the socio-economic elite of society, at least in formal communication.

This is a far cry from "funner" actually not being a word.

If you intend to make a speech in the preferred dialect, then use of the word "funner" is probably inconsistent with your objective.

It is curious why, because "fun" is in a similar lexical category as, say, "green", and yet "greener" is not disfavored in the same way. The possible reason is that "fun" wasn't always in this category; so to speak, it is a late-comer into this category of words. Once upon a time, it was not possible to use "fun" as an adjective. Perhaps more time is needed for "fun" to be more fully integrated into the preferred dialect as a fully fledged adjective. Meanwhile, people not sticking to that dialect, of course, just use the rules of the language as they are intended. There is no such thing as not a fully fledged dialect in natural language. Once we consider "fun" to be an adjective, we have a legitimate basis for using "funner" and "funnest". If we do not believe so, then it means we do not consider "fun" to be an adjective and should also avoid saying things like "I had a fun time" rather than "I had fun".

Kaz
  • 4,902
  • 18
  • 18
  • 2
    [Cryptosporidium vs. funner] (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=funner%2Ccryptosporidium&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfunner%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccryptosporidium%3B%2Cc0) - apparently not. – long Nov 15 '13 at 22:50
  • 4
    @long NGRAMS measures books, not live language use. Note that OP writes "Yet 'funner' is used very often in spoken English with people I meet.". Such utterances are not counted. I would guess that more people speak the word "funner" in a day around the world, than "crytposporidium" in a month. Of course "funner" will tend to be avoided in books. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 22:54
  • 1
    What is, and what is not a word is kind of in flux, isn't it? Who judges? "Funner" is, of course, a word in the same sense that "ponyfraggis" is a word, if "word" is defined as a pronounceable sequence of letters delimited by whitespace. In terms of usage, the frequency of use of "More fun" vs "funner" in formal writing suggest that "funner" is spoken slang. Naturally it is a word, too. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 23:01
  • @Cyberherbalist Something is a word even if it is used by only two communicating people and nobody else. If your four-year-old makes up a word to denote something, and then you start using it when communicating with him, then that is a word between you two. It has phonology, morphology, lexical category, etc: all those properties which apply to words and do not apply to rocks or bicycles. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:05
  • 3
    But it's a toddlerspeak word not an English word. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:12
  • That's what I just wrote, isn't it? Heck, I'll even go so far as describing a sequence of pronounceable letters delimited by whitespace that is only used by one single person -- a private word, if you will. For example, since only I know the definition of "ponyfraggis", that is such a word. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 23:14
  • @EdwinAshworth so, is "cryptosporidium" an English word? Looks like Latin to me. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:15
  • @Cyberherbalist Although I don't know the definition of ponyfraggis, I can see that it has English morphology, and I would be very surprised if it functioned as other than a noun (with any other use being derived from that). – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:17
  • If a word invented by a toddler occurs between a native English speaking parent and their child, in English sentences, what language is it in? I would say that it's in a dialect of English particular to those people; just not in any widespread dialect. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:19
  • Look up "cryptosporidium", "tudri" (my son came up with this one), and "ponyfraggis" in the OED. I think we both know how many out of the three we'll find. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:33
  • @EdwinAshworth Also note that the sentence "I think we both know how many out of the three we'll find" also does not appear in any Oxford-published catalog of possible English sentences. – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 23:39
  • @EdwinAshworth: Given that I made up "ponyfraggis" just a few minutes ago, it would only be coincidence to find it in the OED. Tudri is a Welsh word meaning "tribal leader", apparently: http://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Tudri – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 23:42
  • If we say that something is English, without any qualificatino, that is either meaningless, or it has the broadest possible interpretation. If you want to say that something is not English, you have to make it clear which English you're talking about. If something is not listed in the OED, then it's simply not in OED English: the dialect of English cataloged by the OED. – Kaz Nov 16 '13 at 00:18
  • The American Heritage Dictionary is famous for pioneering the use of corpus linguistics in dictionary compilation. It also has a 200-member “usage panel” whose opinions are consulted on whether a specific usage is acceptable. The OED now operates rather similarly. Obviously, decisions on what is acceptable English usage (including what is an acceptable word) will not be unanimous in all cases. But I'm prepared to go with what they say rather than what I hear from my young son, from the smallish and skewed sample of anglophones I often interact with, from certain novels and newspapers ... – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 01:28
  • No doubt funner is a word, as is ponyfraggis. As for whether or not these are acceptable words, recognized words, literate words, grammatical words, slang words, babytalk words, formal words, made-up words, appropriate words for a resumé or job interview, or words that would gain a favorable vote from a dictionary's usage panel – well, those are different questions. The O.P. opened this can of worms by asking the very loaded question: Is funner a word? The short answer is: Yes, it is a word – but I don't think that's the question that the O.P. really meant to ask. – J.R. Nov 16 '13 at 10:59
  • 5
    @EdwinAshworth Native speakers of English understand what funner means. People that only speak English understand what funner means. I suspect that you, too, understand what this word means. You don't have to like it or agree to its usage, but it's definitely an English word by any sense of the term. – DallaLiyly Nov 17 '13 at 08:12
  • @MunchyWilly I'm not aware of having said it's not an English word. In this instance, I'll go with what OED licenses or doesn't license (not what OED said say 50 years ago). I should think it would attach a register tag (colloquial or slang). I'm arguing in this thread against the claim that any written form of any utterance used between at least two people that is understandable and conforms at least loosely to morphological and syntactic norms should be called an English word. Argn't argI? – Edwin Ashworth Nov 17 '13 at 09:17
  • @EdwinAshworth Fair enough, and I agree that funner is not acceptable in a formal register. The posed question asked if it's an English word, though, and it is - it's transparent/decodable to English speakers, unlike random letters bounded by white space or 'toddlerspeak.' As it stands, though, the OED doesn't even include fun in its adjectival sense. So as much as I love it, I think it's lacking at least one English word. – DallaLiyly Nov 17 '13 at 10:15
  • @MunchyWilly 'Irregardless' and 'brang' would probably be understood by most anglophones, and fit certain accepted morphological patterns. That doesn't make them correct. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 18 '13 at 22:57
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth "irregardless" is a stupidity, but one that is recognized by Merriam-Webster. Not only that, but they have a video about irregardless! Enjoy ... – Kaz Nov 18 '13 at 23:57
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth No one's arguing that funner is a 'correct' word (and whatever that means is a whole other can of worms). The question asks if it's a word. – DallaLiyly Nov 19 '13 at 06:31
  • 1
    OK, I'll say 'irregardless' and 'brang' are understandable by most anglophones, are used by some, have English-word-like forms, are delimited by white spaces, but aren't English words. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 19 '13 at 17:40
2

If an English language learner uttered the words

This is a funner film

I'm pretty sure that native speakers would either correct him, "This film is more fun" or skip past the error but immediately sense that something was off. However, in the many years of teaching English privately to students I can say, hand on heart, I've never come across this type of language mistake by Italian learners (I cannot vouch for other nationalities), on the contrary they often produce the following

This is the more funny film

and

The holiday was funny

The first is the result of an L1 (first language) interference while the second is grammatically correct and in the right context be very acceptable, but in most cases the ESL students meant to say, fun. Why bother correcting these errors in speech and writing if "more" and "funny" are words that exist and can be found in any dictionary? Because, as I explain to students, English native speakers do not normally say these sentences and communication might break down.

Language learners tend to be a highly motivated lot and want to (some desperately need to) communicate effectively in English. Prescriptive grammar is a necessary evil in order to help non-native speakers sound more natural. For the very same reasons, funner and funnest may be classed as words, found in dictionaries and may even be uttered by native speakers, it does not mean phrases or sentences that contain these expressions are standard... not yet.

Type "funner" in Google, and the first page will show people asking whether funner is a word or not. On that same page is the Grammarist's viewpoint which I'll quote because it argues in favour for "funner" quite convincingly

The reason the use of funner and funnest has been discouraged is that fun was until recently only a noun. Nouns do not have comparative (-er) and superlative (-est) forms, but mass nouns such as fun can be modified by more and most (e.g., “I have more water,” or “he has the most courage”). But while some of the stodgier English reference books still pretend fun is not an adjective, most English speakers moved on long ago, and the adjectival fun is rarely questioned. Ultimately, if we accept that fun is an adjective—and we have no choice, because it’s common—then we also have to accept funner and funnest. Comparatives and superlatives of one-syllable adjectives usually take the -er and -est endings, and there’s no good reason fun should be any different.

A well-argued case for funner and funnest being the logical and natural comparative and superlative forms for fun. Yet, I doubt I could ever bring myself to say one day, let alone write,

“This holiday was funner”.
“That was the funnest holiday”.

On the other hand, Urban Dictionary1 which purportedly reports on the most up-to-date language developments has this to say about funner

The dumb person's way of saying 'more fun'

I suspect the majority of English speaking people (whom neither ELU, nor the Grammarist represent) think this on hearing and reading "funner".

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
  • This is a funner film This sounds weird to you because it's nonsense without some context. You're using a comparative with nothing to compare to. Also I've never described a film as fun at all.

    However: "What did you think of the new call of duty game?" "Eh, the last one was funner". Are you suggesting that one must say "Eh, I had more fun playing the last one"? To me that's ABSURD

    – Cruncher May 03 '18 at 21:21
  • @Cruncher the context was implied in the answer. But what's wrong with saying "I had more fun /the most fun playing with Call of Duty 4"? ("I had funner playing with CoD 4"??) – Mari-Lou A May 03 '18 at 21:33
  • You wouldn't say "I had funner playing with CoD 4". Again that's nonsense. You're throwing an adjective into a noun context.

    But fun is an adjective as well. You're just strawmanning by avoiding those. You could say "CoD 4 is fun" or "Cod 4 is funner than CoD MW2" just as well. Why must I say "I had more fun playing CoD 4 than I did playing CoD MW2"? Why must I find a contrived way to fit what I want to say with a noun context because people don't like using fun as an adjective?

    – Cruncher May 07 '18 at 15:57
  • @Cruncher feel free to say whatever you like but you first suggested "Eh, the last one was funner" You're the native speaker, and I'm guessing an American too. It's your language and while you're at it, post an answer. :) – Mari-Lou A May 07 '18 at 16:14
  • @Cruncher post your contribution on the older question (this one is closed). You can, if you want, link your reply back to me. I don't mind in the slightest. – Mari-Lou A May 07 '18 at 16:20
1

What defines whether something is a real word or not? Funner is not a word I'd be likely to use in a published manuscript, however it is defined in the following online dictionaries:

funner

and

funner

It is certainly funner to use it when it's a pretend word.

long
  • 2,211
  • That's what I said! :-) Sort of. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 22:27
  • The caveats (humorous, nonstandard) and (sometimes) given in the dictionaries you link to should be added when it is stated that 'the word is defined'. [I'm working on what 'funner' is the rest of the time. Perhaps it's an allowable usage on alternate Thursdays.] – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:01
  • There are degrees of acceptability. At one level is the vocabulary you would use when presenting a doctoral thesis at interview. Further down are words you might use with adults in your family, which could appear in the latest editions of dictionaries, and perhaps some only in urban dictionaries. Then there is 'baby talk' which you only use with children 'moo-cow', pussy-cat' etc. Finally there are dialect words, and ones you might find in an urban dictionary or uttered by the hoi polloi in the public fora, suitable only for use at football grounds when ranting with the rest of the crowd. – WS2 Nov 15 '13 at 23:11
  • My dictionary's got moo-cow in it. And a picture. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:26
0

"Funner" is not a word, because "fun" is a noun, not an adjective. You can't turn a noun into a comparative, unless it has an adjectival form, which this does not.

Otherwise you'd be making comparisons between different "clocks", for example, by saying that clock "A" was clocker than clock "B".

People say a lot of things that aren't proper grammatical English. So what? People exceed the speed limit and rob banks, too. Doesn't make it right. Although it might be more funner to race a car than drive like an old lady. Or old man.


As @Whitecat points out, I am wrong to say that "fun" is not used as an adjective, because it is, sometimes, used as an adjective. Nevertheless, it is not an adjective, as the Google Ngram in @Jeremy's answer suggests.

  • So, what's with the downvote? – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 22:28
  • 2
    I love this explanation. But isn't fun also an adjective? What is a word with an adjectival form? – Whitecat Nov 15 '13 at 22:31
  • 1
    Oh, maybe you're right. "It was a fun movie." Hmmm. I guess I don't know what I'm talking about, after all. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 22:35
  • 1
    Of course "fun" is an adjective. It is in the same category as "green", which forms "greener", as in "the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence". – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 22:36
  • 1
    There are some interesting notes at Wiktionary's link, provided by @long. That said, Cyberherbalist gave a funner answer to read. For the record though, generally speaking, I much prefer more fun. – J.R. Nov 15 '13 at 22:40
  • It appears that even if "fun" is used as an adjective as well as a noun, nevertheless "funner" is not used. And I don't know why. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 22:42
  • 'Fun' as an adjective, let alone its comparative and superlative, (which I will not even dignify by repeating them), is only grammatical at the level of the inarticulate. If you are attending an interview for a place at a major university to read English, certainly in Britain, you would be well advised not to use them. – WS2 Nov 15 '13 at 22:49
  • 1
    So, @WS2, you're saying that "It was a fun movie" is ungrammatical? That it should be said "The movie was fun"? I can dig it. "...is only grammatical at the level of the inarticulate" Nice call. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 22:52
  • @Cyberherbalist Yes, precisely. If I go catching crabs with my 8 yr old grandson, I say 'that was fun wasn't it'. But if I am discussing a film with other adults I would hope to find more lucid descriptors as to what I thought of it. Given the billions that our respective governments spend on education, adults ought to be able to express themselves better. The UK has the lowest level of educational literacy among its school-leavers of any major European country. And internationally the only one worse is the USA. At this rate Germans will soon speak better English than we do. – WS2 Nov 15 '13 at 23:23
  • Don't blame Whitecat, Cyberherbalist. I confess I downvoted. Glad to see you've dug a little deeper into the usages of 'fun'. That's where you find the mud. Which the liberals and conservatives throw at each other, trying to have the funner time. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:24
  • @EdwinAshworth I actually didn't "blame" Whitecat -- just admitted he had a point. I liked your answer best, by the way, and voted it up. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 23:36
  • 3
    I haven't felt more guilty since I killed that mouse. However, when you say '"fun" ... is, sometimes, used as an adjective. Nevertheless, it is not an adjective', you are arguing against what various dictionaries say. They say that it actually exists as an adjective but that the adjective tends to be used only in informal situations. It is not an attributive use of a noun (like say particle in particle board), because they can't switch to the predicative position (*this board is particle).... – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 00:13
  • 1
    The nouns rubbish, ace, and wizard also seem to have been adjectived. We can say 'I've never had a more fun day', which seems a pretty conclusive test for adjectiveness. But why 'more fun' in preference to 'funner'? Perhaps because of the nounal influence. And we'll probably see 'funner' becoming more and more acceptable as the adjectival usage grows. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 00:24
  • @Edwin Ashworth At the school I visit in inner-suburban Manchester, (where 54% of the children speak Urdu or Hindi at home) the lingua franca of the playground, among black, white and Asian, is traditional Mancunian combined with a dose of estuary English, which they pick up from the soaps on TV. One expression stands out. They will use 'done' as the simple past tense, rather than 'did' 'I done it last night'. Because millions of working-class kids in Britain say this, should it be dignified by acceptance into the OED? For this is what people seem to be saying regarding 'funner' and funnest'. – WS2 Nov 16 '13 at 08:39
  • In other words, if 'English' is what people speak, then why bother to teach kids at all? – WS2 Nov 16 '13 at 08:42
  • 1
    Maybe fun isn't the best adjective for a movie, but what about an amusement park, or a roller coaster ride? I have no problem with, "That was a fun ride; let's get in line again." I don't think that sounds illiterate; just because there are "more lucid descriptions" for a movie doesn't mean fun can never be used as an adjective. As for dictionaries: Some don't recognize it, some do, and some are in-between. – J.R. Nov 16 '13 at 10:30
  • 2
    @WS2 "Because millions of working-class kids in Britain say this, should it be dignified by acceptance into the OED? For this is what people seem to be saying regarding 'funner' and funnest'." If a certain number of people say it [ie that it's acceptable], and go on to use it [the usage], it [the usage] must be included in OED because that's how what is included is determined. It doesn't necessarily mean that the usage you / I prefer must be dropped. (Though I use 'X is fun to do' where 'fun' can't reasonably be analysed as nounal, but adjectival as in 'X is easy to do'.) English changes. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 12:27
  • I seem to remember someone saying that the adjectival incarnation of fun pre-dates the (once-)neologisms photograph and Walkman (!) Few people object to these brazen interlopers into the lexis. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 16 '13 at 12:30
  • @Edwin Ashworth In that case can 'done' be included as a simple past tense of do, as in 'I just done the washing-up'? – WS2 Nov 16 '13 at 20:44
  • Cyberherbalist's answer is a perfect answer for the reason that it is not a word. Check google's n-grams for proof that is it not in use. – Jeremy Nov 15 '13 at 22:35
  • Not in use does not mean it is not a word. Those who have been accused of adoxography may concur. – long Nov 15 '13 at 22:39
  • @long Solid point. However, the fact that the fact that 'funner' is not in use tells us that it's inappropriate in most kinds of writing, whether formal or informal. – Jeremy Nov 15 '13 at 22:42
  • It would be very appropriate in some forms of writing; poetry, humour etc. It would sit perfectly in a Dr Seuss book. – long Nov 15 '13 at 22:43
  • Well, that argues that one of my favorite words, "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is very appropriate in all contexts, too. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 22:48
  • Not in Ngrams does not necessarily mean that it is not in use. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 22:55
  • 1
    Ngrams means not in use in print! Google does not monitor and index what everyone around he world is speaking. (Of course, they will, in maybe 20, 25 years.) – Kaz Nov 15 '13 at 22:57
  • Not in Ngrams means they haven't found significant evidence of its use. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 15 '13 at 23:15
  • I myself use "funner" when I want to talk like a silly person. And sometimes I do want to talk like one. But not very often. – Cyberherbalist Nov 15 '13 at 23:16
  • I loved this post! – Whitecat Nov 15 '13 at 23:33
  • @WS2 "The UK has the lowest level of educational literacy among its school-leavers of any major European country. And internationally the only one worse is the USA." Do you have a reference for this? I'm quite interested. – tazboy Nov 10 '14 at 18:42
  • @tazboy According to this one we are actually behind the USA at reading, but ahead in maths and science. But both countries are behind most other European countries and miles behind places like South Korea. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading – WS2 Nov 10 '14 at 19:29
  • @tazboy This is more up-to-date. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10488555/OECD-education-report-subject-results-in-full.html – WS2 Nov 10 '14 at 19:34