Although long in coming, I was pleased to read the article by Lunetta and van den Berg focusing on graduate science education programs in the Northern hemisphere (especially the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom) for students from the Southern Hemisphere countries. It is even more gratifying that the article was written by seasoned science educators who have extensive first-hand experience with graduate programs and international students. They have extensive consulting experience with respect to science teaching, and science teacher preparation in some parts of the southern hemisphere. Lunetta and van den Berg (1995) have used the terms "lowincome" and "high-income'' countries rather than "developing/developed" or "first/third" distinctions. I imagine they wished to avoid the controversies which surround the use of these terms. I prefer the less contentious terms "Northern/Southern hemisphere" (NH/SH) countries for two reasons. First, most of the students Lunetta and van den Berg are writing about come from SH countries. Second, high-and lowincome designations invite arbitrary decisions since there is no easily recognizable standard. Moreover, designations based on income betray a Western perspective not always shared by non-Western people. People in SH countries do not necessary attach as much value to capital generation as do those in NH countries. Rural economies, for example, can run very smoothly and efficiently without the exchange of money or without thinking of a Gross Domestic/National Product.
After reviewing current programs, Lunetta and van den Berg offer what is in their view a more appropriate science education program for international students. While their effort is welcome, one would have expected a more radical alternative based on a future projections and based on empirical data. For instance, their position would