Slashdot Mirror


USA to Pass Science Crown to China

instantgames writes "According to a working paper of the National Bureau of Economic Research, rapid development of a science and technology base by populous Asian countries soon may threaten the economic position of the United States. Not only is the U.S. losing ground in high technology exports, but its very capacity to develop new technologies is declining rapidly with respect to the rest of the world. According to Richard Freeman, the paper's author, the sheer population of Asian countries may allow them to train more scientists and engineers than the U.S. while devoting a smaller share of their economy to science and technology." From the article: "The phenomenal growth of China's industrial base has been widely publicized, but Freeman focuses on what is perhaps the more important long-term indicator of a nation's prosperity - its re-investment in science and technology education. "

165 of 1,247 comments (clear)

  1. Bill Gates on US Education by Ohmster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scary stuff, no question. Bill Gates, in a speech to the nation's Governors three months ago, cited some pretty startling takeaways on the state of Science education in the US. NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman had a great piece on it. More on both here: ahref=http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005/04/fire_aim_read y.htmlrel=url2html-6897http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005 /04/fire_aim_ready.html>

    1. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Com2Kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This nation does not have a history of education or academic excellence. Our WW2 genius was mostly imported, as was much of our cold war research.

      We as a nation have been able to attract great minds with promises of "vast tracks of land", but that is about it.

    2. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by snorklewacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      > We as a nation have been able to attract great minds with promises of "vast tracks of land", but that is about it.

      sigh

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    3. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by MontyApollo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech...

      The best and brightest from all over the world come to our universities because they are some of the best.

      I think "American Dream" is more accurate description than "vast tracks of land."

    4. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by drdewm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately they are pricing the Universities out of the reach of the populace.

    5. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem is that the environment in the US is becoming hostile to science. The religious extremists, greatly enheartened by a Fundementalist President's second term, are pursuing an agenda of undermining public education to replace science with nonsense like Intelligent Design and "teach the controversy."

      The US cannot have it both ways. It cannot have the Fundies working against areas of science that flies in the face of their silly Biblical literalism and still foster a healthy scientific community. At some point the states and Congress are going to have to tell the religious anti-science crowd that they do not have the right to trash science education, or the US is going to enter its decline, and this time the rising powers are going to find it in their best interests to keep scientists away from American universities and research.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by John+Courtland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, we technically have more "area" than China if you count Alaska (it's very close, US: 9,631,418 sq km vs China: 9,596,960 sq km, source CIA World Fact Book, but that also includes water, which we have more of, check for yourself to see). China does have very little more actual land. However I'm just being a dick and not really participating. :)

      All I know, is that it seems to take a MAJOR issue (like a giant war) to really cause a superpower to fall. So, barring the end of the United States by military coup or what not, there will come a point where China will no longer be able to make leaps and bounds vs the US because the time will have come that China becomes a first world nation with first world problems. It's much harder to totally surpass your opponent technologically than to just catch up by taking their ideas and performing a brain drain on their universities and pretending that by making your population smarter, they won't start to demand more and more resources.

      What I'm saying, is that it doesn't matter that China is catching up. The problems that happens in all developed nations will happen there. For example: their smarter population will demand increases in pay, pensions, more vacation, etc... Becoming a first world nation is tough, every first world nation is having some sort of major problem. China will have theirs.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    7. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by bigman2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, now the things valued most highly in American institutions (public and private) are things like 'diversity training,' 'empowering employees,' and 'inclusive respect.'

      Actually doing a good job has ceased being the primary focus of our workplaces- we now sit around and talk about how wonderful we all are, even the stupid people have something to contribute. We really need to seek out their ideas, because they might give us a new perspective!

      Sure, yes, all well and good. But when our kids end up working in some factory making cheap consumer goods for the Chinese- maybe 'sensitivity training' won't seem so important.

      (Sorry, I just got behind on my work by a week while sitting through this week-long training course...)

      --
      No reason to lie.
    8. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bill Gates did more to move US students away from technical education than anybody when he promoted the H-1b program. That program means that scientific and technical professionals are more exposed to competition from immigrants than any other skilled occuptation. The result has been that Americans move to occupations where they can earn a living.

    9. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by pivo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The best and brightest from all over the world come to our universities because they are some of the best.

      That's true now, but China is busy building it's own versions of these universities. They're already very good in many ways. And with U.S. immigration making it harder to get here, Chinese students will soon have fewer reasons to leave home.

    10. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Retric · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Long-term China's growth is going to slow down. Right now it's using predatory monetary policy to fuel rapid economic growth but as Japan learned you can only feed off other nations for so long before your internal system starts to collapse. Japan and China both have rapidly aging populations. Europe's system is practically stagnant. Honestly, Brazil and India look to be the biggest players in 50 years IMO.

      America has a tradition of innovation, a stable population, a low population density, huge amounts of capital, a steady influx of immigrants, and a devise society. We also have an insane prison population, high levels of drug use, a week SS program ECT. I don't think we will still have 2x the economy of biggest competitors in 50 years but I think we are in good long-term shape.

      PS: Canada and Australia will also become more significant players on the world stage, but I don't see them having the levels of economic growth to catch up with the US in the next 50 years.

    11. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      pursuing an agenda of undermining public education

      Our educational system was specifically designed to manufacture interchangeable factory drones who followed orders and avoided thinking whenever possible - and it seems to have done it's job well. If anything it's a smashing success.

      If you want research and innovation, public education is not the place I'd focus my efforts.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    12. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Listen, lad. I've built this education system up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. The king said I was daft to build a school in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. An' that's what your gonna get, lad -- the strongest school in these islands.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by siplus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I am a recent graduate of our nation's public secondary educational system.

      I can say for a fact that they are not hindering scientific education, in fact it's quite the opposite.

      My biology teacher (of whom I now greatly respect) is very religous, but tought not to enforce biblical references (that's just rediculous), but 'taught the controversy' and let us decide for ourselves. To be specific evolution vs creationism. He never said 'this is what happened' or 'this is the only accepted version of how we ____', it mentioned both, and some lesser ideas as well. He taught us to evaulate and not to laugh at the strange ideas.

      As far as I know, that would be the best way to address the issue. My teacher showed us the facts, theories, and possibilities that exist, and demanded that we (through essays/tests and such) demonstrate full knowledge of what the scientific community knows and what current theories entail.

      How would that inhibit science?

      (note to the grammer/spelling nazis: while I'm a student of science, I abhor anything related to those 'English' classes that test on spelling, so tough :-P)

    14. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Buelldozer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you truly think that "religious extremists" are the problem you're even more nuts then they are.

      The REAL problem is that our society does not LIKE smart people, it prefers jocks.

      It starts in grade school with the teasing of the "smart kid" and progresses through High School where large football players with brains the size of walnuts play whack-a-mole with kids half their size and three times their intellect.

      When we become adults are we, defined as popular society, more interested in learning about the latest advance in Physics or what Brittney Spears had for breakfest?

      Religous extremists are NOT the reason our education system is failing nor are they the reason that we are producing fewer and fewer talented, motivated, and intelligent Scientists and Engineers.

      THE answer is all around us, and it is IS us...it's society stupid.

      BTW, my father-in-law is a devout Christian and an AWESOME Advanced Placement Physics instructor at the local high school.

    15. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The problem is that there is no scientific controversy. The number of scientists that reject evolution are such a small percentage that it's really not meaningful. What you've been taught is a lie. If there is a controversy, it is a religious and political one, not a scientific one.

      Evolutionary theory is a highly successful scientific theory, and has had no meaningful scientific competitor since the Modern Synthesis brought it and genetics together in the 1930s. There are debates within evolutionary research over particular mechanisms (ie. natural selection vs. genetic drif), but there is no debate over whether evolution happened or not.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by denissmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a mistake to say this nation has no 'history of education or academic excellence', the US was an early leader in providing Universal education - and the WW2 geniuses included plenty of home grown talent - Richard Feynman, Robert Oppenheimer to name two without bothering to google for more. It is fair to point out that this history of commitment to education has been uneven, and since the early 1960's has been progressively abandoned. New York's public schools used to be very good - now they suck so bad they are almost anti-educational, in some cases. Land grant colleges (now State Universities) are a legacy of this old commitment. In California in the 1970's and before, state residents could attend any state institution that accepted them academically for free. All that is gone, and it is tragic, but we shouldn't forget that we once DID have a commitment to education, and educational excellence. They are what gave us the technological lead we are about to squander. There has been an anti-intellectual strain in American history, but it isn't exactly the same thing.

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    17. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2

      Innovation - We need to fix our patent system before bragging here.

      Stable population - Does that count illegal immigrants? To maintain population growth. A family needs to have 3 kids. Economically this is impossible.

      Population density - More spreadout land means more distance to cover for anything. That's why Japan can deploy fibre channel easier. It's a plus and minus.

      Capital - The nations wealth belongs to a sub 5% of americans. Always same group of crusty old white guys.

    18. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by ivaldes3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good for personal control. As far as 'Christianity has enough blood on its hands' is concerned, how much blood would there be without it? I'm well aware of history. Most wars in the name of religion are really about land and resources.

      -- IV

      --
      http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
    19. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by siplus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Except that there is so little chance of life occuring the way it is today through evolution alone. I suppose I developed an 'intelligent design' belief, but there are WAY too many coincedences to support evolution alone.

      You are right, in that it is mostly a political debate, not a scientific debate. He adverted the political side by making us decide for ourselves. Questions rose in my mind on how the complexity of modern life could have possibly happened 'by accident' or evolved to the level it has today. This is the point i'm trying to get at

      (if anyone wishes to debate on why I think we are here because of evolution alone, think of all the physiological intricacies of the human body. the counter-current systems in the lungs, and of the nephrons in the kidneys. the remarkable ability to maintain homeostasis, and how meiosis magically mixes up dna to increase genetic diversity. Try to convince me that all of that -- and a ton more -- arived by accident from a bubbling pile of organic ooze (that somehow managed to arrange a plasma membrane, that's another discussion))

    20. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative
      Except that there is so little chance of life occuring the way it is today through evolution alone. I suppose I developed an 'intelligent design' belief, but there are WAY too many coincedences to support evolution alone.

      This classic argument from incredulity seems to assume that early life possessed all the features of modern life, and that simply is not what any researcher says. Beyond that, most of these claims that abiogenesis was a one in x-teen zillion possibility are pretty suspect.

      Except that there is so little chance of life occuring the way it is today through evolution alone. I suppose I developed an 'intelligent design' belief, but there are WAY too many coincedences to support evolution alone.

      If this is what you think then I don't think your teacher gave you a very good general notion of what evolutionary theory says. Yes, mutations themselves are random, but evolution is not just a series of random steps.

      (if anyone wishes to debate on why I think we are here because of evolution alone, think of all the physiological intricacies of the human body. the counter-current systems in the lungs, and of the nephrons in the kidneys. the remarkable ability to maintain homeostasis, and how meiosis magically mixes up dna to increase genetic diversity. Try to convince me that all of that -- and a ton more -- arived by accident from a bubbling pile of organic ooze (that somehow managed to arrange a plasma membrane, that's another discussion))
      None of this falsifies evolution. We can see variants and potential predecessors to these systems in existing organisms. Even invoking the word "magic" indicates that you have been seriously misinformed about evolutionary theory.

      You seem to be operating essentially from an argument from incredulity. Have you actually read any texts by researchers in evolutionary biology?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Vicissidude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No kidding. Mod parent up!

      The average Joe is more interested in the latest sports scores than the latest scientific developments. On top of that, ask the average person on the street who's worth more money, Michael Jordan or Bill Gates, and a surprising amount of people would say Michael Jordan... I mention that because I actually did have that argument with a coworker 7 years ago. She just wouldn't accept that Bill Gates was worth on the order of a thousand times the amount of Jordan.

      On top of that, a large number of high school athletes seriously think they can get into professional sports, although they're more likely to win the lottery. They think that's the only way they can "make it". A lot of them skip studying in order to practise their athletics. No one around them tells them they're more likely to become successful by studying and getting a good education rather than hitting the hoops.

      So, they hit the steriods and pump up. That's makes them super-aggressive, especially towards the weak nerds - a bunch of losers they perceive as having no chance of "making it".

    22. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good for personal control. As far as 'Christianity has enough blood on its hands' is concerned, how much blood would there be without it? I'm well aware of history. Most wars in the name of religion are really about land and resources.

      Well, I'm thinking more of Christianity's long history of mistreatment of heretics, Jews and the like. I would hope a modern society would be able to come up with a better justification for people behaving themselves then "God says so, and you'll fry if you doesn't do what He says." That seems pretty barbaric as far as justifications go, and leaves the door open for all sorts of abuses by sufficiently cynical or insane inviduals who possess enough charisma or leverage with their community. That is, after all, why the Founding Fathers were rather keen to create a secular state. They were a pretty savvy lot who understood that simply justifying things through religious dictates was a rather open door to abusive behavior.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Lifewish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except that there is so little chance of life occuring the way it is today through Intelligent Design alone. I suppose I developed an 'evolution' belief, but there are WAY too many screwups in nature to support Intelligent Design alone.

      You are right, in that it is mostly a political debate, not a scientific debate. He adverted the political side by making us decide for ourselves. Questions rose in my mind on how the complexity of modern life could have possibly been created 'by intelligence' or appeared at the level it's at today. This is the point i'm trying to get at.

      (if anyone wishes to debate on why I think we are here because of evolution alone, think of all the physiological idiocies of the human body. the crossover between the windpipe and the oesophagus, and the apparently useless appendix. the remarkable tendency to get back pains due to our badly-designed spinal curvature, and how genetic diversity is comparatively minimal - everything we see around us seems to at least belong to the same family tree. Try to convince me that all of that -- and a ton more -- was produced by a supposedly intelligent Creator (who somehow sprung fully-formed and with high IQ from nowhere, that's another discussion))

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    24. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by e_slarti · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ack!

      If you're going to post an article about educational adequacies, please try spelling correctly. The disclaimer at the end does not exempt you from using the spell checking abilities of your computer.

      As it is, I do believe the U.S. educational system is adequate, (excepting the rather poorly informed persons advocating creationist, a.k.a. "intelligent design," agendas) in most areas, not including fields such as science, math, history, art, physical education, and analytical thought... which leaves welding, underwater basket-weaving, and recess. (end sarcasm)

      I am not a believer in many of the home-schooling programs, but I am an intense advocate of helping children learn instead of just passing them on to the next grade because they can play football.

      I know there's a lot more to the whole education controversy, but the end results are the same. They're OUR children. They need OUR help, as well as the help of professional educators.

      It's a terrible truth of our current society in the U.S. that the children who tend to do well have the serious guidance and involvement of their parents, whereas poorer-performing children tend to lack the same parental involvement.

      It's not ALL the parents' fault, but I believe the changes we need to make in society are much more involved than providing arbitrary and unnecessary testing. We need to somehow advocate more parental involvement in their own child's development and not advocate that everyone must work slavishly just to survive (or to purchase that nice boat).

      I don't know if this is the best answer, but I do think that the parents are the key. Our society here in the U.S. seems to hamper and peck away at the parental responsibilities rather than provide positive and meaningful support for what we would like to teach and see in successive generations.

      I find it very disturbing that we can spend more money on buying Johnny a PS2 and games for Christmas than we do taking him to the museum or purchasing books or buying him the latest fad clothing. Don't get me wrong, I realize there's social development value in some of these things, but we seem to emphasize those things over whether they learn to read (and SPELL) nowadays.

      Now, bring on the flames...

      P.S. - I seem to have forgotten this is slashdot... obligatory incendiary comment: "Kill all the lawyers!"

    25. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I won't quietly ignore your alleged "flaws", I'll point out that a) science doesn't prove things and b) that all the genetic evidence points to common ancestry (the twin-nested hierearchy first pointed to by the fossil evidence has been continuously confirmed by genetic studies of various organisms).

      I will freely admit that abiogenesis theories are far from complete, but they are themselves proper science. We gather evidence about early conditions of the Earth, and we apply our understanding of organic chemistry. We may never know the exact pathway from prebiotic chemicals through primitive replicators to modern cells, but simply saying "Goddidit" not only isn't a scientific answer, but in fact rejects the possibility that science could ever answer the question. It's an unfalsifiable claim that, even if it were actually true, would not be a scientific theory.

      I think it's pretty early in the game to declare "science cannot answer this question", don't you?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Ohmster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The focus on a jock culture here is spot on. In India, there is an distinct absence of jock worship...most it extends to is cricket. Part of the reason is that sports has not until recently been as commercialized as in the US. i.e., sports heroes typically didn't make a ton of dough in a career over there unlike here. As a result, most parents and consequently, a lot of kids (who listen to their parents most of the time on career matters), drift to things where the die is cast in terms of secure career and life-time income...thus computers, science, etc. sits at the top of the list. This is changing slowly as sports get more commercialized in India, but it's still likely a generation before anything changes meaningfully on that front. Not sure how it is in China, but would venture to say it's similar.

    27. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This nation does not have a history of education or academic excellence.

      U.S. universities attract very smart people from all over the world even today. It is true that many of the greatest inventions credited to the U.S. were made by immigrants, but the U.S. is a country of immigrants. That is kind of the whole point. We attracted those great minds to our country with our more laissez-faire economic policies among other things. They chose to live here. Most of those great minds lived in our cities. So I'm not sure what they did with those vast tracts of land.

      The U.K., Germany, and the U.S. are the three countries in the world most responsible for the modern technologies that the rest of the world benefits from today. It seems at the very least disingenuous to ignore that fact. I don't deny that there are a lot of stupid and lazy and brutish people in the U.S., but that is also true of the rest of the world. Only a small percentage of the human race is responsible for technological advancements.

      And anyway, I don't think our educational system (per se) lags behind that of other countries. To the extent that there is a problem I think it is cultural. We have become lazy. It is not so much that the teachers in other countries are so much better. It's that the students tend to be more disciplined. You can't learn if you don't study. And the fact that our children so often grow up in front of the mind-numbing television cannot be helping matters.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    28. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having followed with morbid curiousity the creation movement in the US for a number of years now, there are several key words that render the actions of your teacher suspect.

      First, the "very religious" comment. This wouldn't raise my eyebrows except for the rest, as many very religious persons do not have a problem with the theory of evolution. Unfortunately a very vocal subset do. Also the very religious comment just begs the question of how you know this? Bumping into the teacher out in public or through their actions at school? The latter may be inappropriate depending on the circumstances.

      Second: "...tought not to enforce biblical references..." Why should religious references even be mentioned in a science class?

      Third: "taught the controversy" WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!There is no scientific controversy as to whether or not evolution occurs or new species appear, or as to the fact that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor. The scientific debate that occurs is over the exact mechanisms of evolution and their relative importance. These are the real debates in evolution and represent the cutting edge of science. We don't teach the cutting edge in high school science classes, or even most undergraduate classes for that matter. "Teach the controversy" is simply a creationist code word for a religiously motivated attack on evolution that attempts to skirt the establishment clause.

      Fourth: And right after that, we've got your statement that the teacher mentioned "both" and didn't point out the great differences between evolution and creationism. Evolution is the bedrock of biology and is the most thoroughly tested theory in science. It's been around for 150 years and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Creationism on the other hand is either a religious concept (actually several different and often incompatible concepts) or refers to pseudoscience, creationism having been removed from the realm of scientific possibility about 200 years ago and as such has no business in a high school science class.

      So how does this hinder science? Well, it hinders science because your teacher wasted your classes' time by introducing unscientific ideas into a science class and removing time from actually teaching established science--the entire *point* of a science class. Worse, not by not highlighting the enormous differences between creationism and evolutionary biology your teacher implicity equated them. This is an attempt by your teacher to put you and your classmates on the path of hurtling American biology backwards two hundred years. Now while I think it'd be great if high school students could demonstrate full knowledge of what the scientific community knows and what current evolutionary biology entails, it looks pretty clear that this was not your teacher's intent.

    29. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think the problem is that the US is going to finally fall. I mean, that's probably for the best for all involved, including the Americans (long term). Once they stop being able to coast along on the backs of everyone else like they've been doing for the last hundred years or so, they'll have to restructure their society and act like adults instead of spoiled children.

      The real problem is, how are we going to deal with that painful transition period where the US economy is in the shitter, the Fundies are running the show, and they have all the worlds nukes and a zealots belief in their "manifest destiny"?

      Now THAT scares the shit out of me.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    30. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by shokk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lack of resources is going to be a major problem for them. There is a real lack of clean water in most of that country. Do a little Googling and you'll see that rural areas have been rioting. Unless they can maximize the efficiency of operations in the rural areas things are going to fall apart fast. They're becoming nothing more than a glorified North Korea. But they are not sitting down about it. I read about a number of model village/city projects they are doing. If they are open about whatever they develop, it will benefit the world in general and they will rightly score major long-term points.

      I wonder at what point we'll stop having them manufacture our barbie dolls and salad shooters. South America is right at our doorstep and offering to build factories and hand them jobs would do wonders. As there is an issue with South American sweat shops (there seems to be no issue with Chinese sweat shops?) that doesn't seem likely.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    31. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Yunzil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try to convince me that all of that -- and a ton more -- arived by accident from a bubbling pile of organic ooze (that somehow managed to arrange a plasma membrane, that's another discussion)

      That fact that you used the word "accident" demonstrates that your "very religious" biology teacher has failed. Evolution is not accidental or random. It is directed by selection pressures from the environment.

    32. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Yunzil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One need not be opposed to evolution to be inspired by the possibility that life as we know it emerged (and continues to emerge) according to the design of a higher intelligence.

      Sure it's possible. It's just untestable and unfalsifiable, and hence, useless.

      The theory that life emerges as protozoa, or virii, or any other miniscule or molecular creature in any way that could survive the ravages of nature by a process of evolution toward greater degrees of organization, according to the laws of physics, without the intervention of pre-existing intelligence, fails the basic test of science: Reproducability.

      First off, it's "viruses". Secondly, the exactly same thing can be said for the idea of an Intelligent Designer. Has anyone seen an example of the Designer designing anything lately? Also, if the designer is so intelligent, how do you explain that the human body is so poorly "designed"?

      Until you can show me that life can emerge from a naturally occurring (meaning under present or past conditions), non-living chemical mix, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not unreasonable to assume that life does not simply emerge from nothingness.

      Yes it is, actually. Since there IS a plausible hypothesis for how life (starting from reproducing molecules) could have happened using the laws of chemistry and physics as we know them, and since there is NO plausible hypothesis explaining how life emerged from nothingness, then it's very unreasonable to assume the latter. Sorry.

    33. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Luxembourg is a tax haven. I'm sure Monnaco has us beat also. That proves nothing. Compare it to the GDP in Manhatten or West LA for a fair comparison.

      Sweden runs their entire government off oil revenue. When that runs dry the gravy train is over.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    34. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In India, there is an distinct absence of jock worship

      If you're telling me that Sachin Tendulkar is not worshipped as practically a god, then I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas.

      sports has not until recently been as commercialized as in the US. i.e., sports heroes typically didn't make a ton of dough in a career over there unlike here.

      This one is (somewhat) true. Certainly cricketers aren't raking in the sort of cash that, ay, baseballers do in the US - but they certainly aren't short of cash from advertising and endorsement deals. And then there are the recurrign accusations of pay offs from Indian and Pakistani bookmakers for match fixing...

      Jedidiah.

    35. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by rajafarian · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... we were merely expressing other views on origins of life.

      How many? Two?

    36. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by lorelorn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It inhibits science because what you have been taught is a lie.

      There is no 'controversy' in regards to evolution. It is a fact.

      The Earth, and indeed, the universe, is older than 5,000 years.

      What you have illustrated here very well is the bastardisation of science that is occurring in American education due to the influence of ant-scientists.

      It inhibits science to lie to students about what constitutes a 'theory' in science.

      It inhibits science when graduates of science in a country don't even know what the scientific method is.

      It inhibits science when dogma is allowed to be presented as a credible alternative to scientific theory. Dogma, unlike science, is not, cannot be falsifiable.

      It inhibits science when people such as yourself are taught dogma as if it were science, and then think you have been taught about science, and publicly aver that what you were taught was science.

      It was not.

      You were lied to. Creationism is a dogma built on and sustained by a long campaign of lies and misinformation.

      Go and read some decent science books, there are plenty of them out there. And don't ever call creationism a theory again. It is not.

    37. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by timbo234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just try to see if you can have a computer simulation come up with something on the order of complexity of TCP/IP that works even half as well.

      Given 4 billion years and an incredibly powerful 'computer' (the universe or at least an entire planet) you don't think your program might achieve something?

      How did we evolve and the universe come into being in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

      This is pure propaganda from creationists. There is not and has never been any conflict between evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_co ntroversy#Accusations_involving_science

      What (or who) created the original Order in the universe?

      Science does not know this and neither does religion.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    38. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " I made the mistake in my original post of not stressing enough that it was thought-inducing..."

      I'll wager that with only one exception, all of the science you were taught in biology class was taught rather dogmatically: germs cause disease, life is cellular, mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, population genetics. The one area that was to be "thought-inducing" was evolutionary biology. Given that evolution is at least as well established as the rest of biology and that there are no valid scientific alternatives, why do you suppose that it might have been singled out?

      "But at that particular moment in classes I am refering to my teacher was not refuting evolution, we were merely expressing other views on origins of life."

      There is a problem with this statement. Right now there is only one scientifically valid point of view on the origins of the diversity of life and that is evolution. Notice the difference: diversity of life and the origin of life. The two are most definitely not the same. Evolution requires as a starting point some sort of replicator that the factors of mutation and natural selection can act upon, and nothing more. This doesn't even necessarily require something as complex as a cell. Evolution is not concerned with the origins of this first replicator; that falls under abiogenesis, which is a seperate field of study. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned this first replicator(s) could come about by natural means, aliens, or the supernatural and it would have no impact on evolutionary theory at all. If your teacher has implied that evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are synonymous s/he has done your education a disservice.

      "As far as covering evolutionary material, we did that, in as much as is expected in a Biology 101 equivelant class, and much more."

      It's the nature of that "much more" that draws concern. That your teacher failed to say "this is what happened" in comparing the solid science of evolution versus the disproven pseudoscience of creationism renders his/her intentions suspect.

    39. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Personally, I don't know Einstein's beliefs in origins, but I don't think they would have hindered one way or the other his development of the theory of relativity,

      Why did he come to the US? Fear of religious persecution by the Nazis. The US fundamentalists don't like Jews that much either. As for "origins"; how does the Big Bang fit in with that? No study of cosmology can begin if you're trying to reconcile it with a literal biblical interpretation. More practically, the bans on stem-cell research, prompted by the same mindset, will kill off any chance of getting a lead in medical sciences.

    40. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you'd been smart, you'd dug trenches to drain the swamp and built the school on a corner of the resulting dry land and sold, rented or farmed the rest for profit. But then again, I guess you didn't have education back then :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    41. Re:Bill Gates on US Education by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All empires fall, eventually. The accidents of history, or geography, or technology, or society that propel a society to greatness impose their own restrictions, and time passes, new technologies are born and grow, and eventually another society ascends.

      Spain, in the time of England's Queen Elizabeth, was the dominant world power. After their fall, they were a poor nation (certainly compared to the dominant powers of Europe) for a few centuries.

      The USA will not be able to continue using a quarter of the world's oil production for a twentieth of the world's population. China and India are becoming wealthier by their own industriousness, and soon their corporations will be competing with American ones to buy the world's resources.

      If the world is lucky, the leaders in the USA will handle our waning influence the way the leaders of the UK did after WWII, and quietly step off the stage as new powers take over. If the world is unlucky, the USA follows the path of Czarist Russia or Imperial Germany after WWI, and descend into chaos until a charismatic leader uses extraordinary circumstances to assume supreme authority.

      You are correct; there are scary possibilities in the future. What are you doing to help prevent them from coming about?

  2. That should go along nicely... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...with China's commensurate commitment to freedom of speech, human rights, free flows of information among its citizenry, support of protest and political dissent, and so on.

    That's not the only critical front on which the US will be competing with China: the US will soon pass the oil/fossil fuel consumption crown to China as well if current trends continue.

    Further, China is free to spend for its own growth with little oversight from the populace (such as investing heavily in pebble bed fission reactors, planning to build 30 new reactors by 2020), allowing it to spend money as it sees fit without the same social and political constraints as the US. And even with what little oversight you think we might have in the US, it's far greater than the influence a typical Chinese citizen has. It's too bad that we'll likely never see new nuclear plants built anytime soon here, with all the political baggage.[1] We'll just keep using the quickly diminishing supply of conventional fossil fuels.[2]

    [1] An environmental research group came to my door the other day extolling the virtues of environmental law, conservation, anti-pollution law, and etc., as you'd expect. All noble causes, when tempered with economic reality. But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical. Could they "count on my support?" In a word, no.

    [2] Bush is actually pushing hard for the nuclear plants we're in desperate need of. See the policy speeches here. Contrast this with some typical opponents' opposition to all ongoing nuclear research under the guise of nuclear weapons nonproliferation.

    1. Re:That should go along nicely... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all environmentalists are anti-nuclear. Iirc, when the Ontario government shut down it's nuke plants, the greenies cried bloody murder. In the States, the problem isn't that environmentalists don't want nuclear power, the problem is that they don't trust the Bush administration with it.

      Oh, and yeah, there are a lot of dumb greenies who think it's still the '60s and all nuclear power is teh evil.

    2. Re:That should go along nicely... by gsfprez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the States, the problem isn't that environmentalists don't want nuclear power, the problem is that they don't trust the Bush administration with it.

      that has to be the single most stupid thing i've ever seen on /.

      what in the hell does that even mean? Is he going to set off the nukular reactors and blow someone up? Is he going to use them to drill for oil? Is he going to give the reactors to the Saudi's, you know - those evil dirty Arabs who are just so evil... Arabs... evil... Saudis... evil arabs...

      the level of hatred against this guy is epic. He is like Hitler in one way - the level of vilification by the world. Except in one case, it was justified.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    3. Re:That should go along nicely... by jahudabudy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical.

      Yeah, sometimes (most of the time?) passionate self-righteousness precludes any rational thought. I work on the campus of a liberal arts college, and see a lot of PCU-style protesters. A few years ago, NC was looking to build a waste-disposal site for low-level nuclear waste (generally stuff like rubber gloves used in medical procedures involving radiation or x-ray). I was approached by a protest group that wanted me to sign a petition decrying this horrendous environmental affront. I asked them what they proposed should be done with this waste, they said "Stop producing it." I pointed out that a) chemotherapy patients, dental patients, etc. would object to this "solution", and b) this "solution" would do absolutely nothing for the already existing waste.
      I'm not sure which was louder, the howls of rage, or the giant sucking sound as my points were hurled into the intellectual vacuum.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    4. Re:That should go along nicely... by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many environmentalists are in favor of sensible energy policy, which can include nuclear power when done correctly. A minority of them, however, are simply opposed to ALL forms of power generation. There isn't a method of generation that is unopposed by anyone. Whatever it is, they'll find a reason to hate it. I think this small percentage of hardcore environmentalists are really just anti-society luddites. What better way to shut down industrialized society than to get rid of electrical generation?

    5. Re:That should go along nicely... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      what in the hell does that even mean? Is he going to set off the nukular reactors and blow someone up?

      No. To spell it out for you, nuclear power plants are supposed to be privately held, but publicly regulated. This regulation is essential to insure that the populace is not injured due to lack of plant maintenance or poor operation. The Bush administration has shown itself willing to allow industries off the hook (and actively fighting for them to be kept of the same hoook) for several years now. It is unlikely that their stance on nuclear regulation would be different. As such, most people (even us who support the technology) are quite leery about letting it return under this administration.

      And before you give me the old Libertarian saw about how the power companies would be hurting themselves if they let the plants go out of safety compliance, remember that people and companies do a whole lot of things which, in hindsight, appear to be stupid, in order to take "low-risk" gains, only to have said probability turn aginst them. Also, as the Congress' new tort-reform legislation has been signed (and was always limited in practice by actual assets - there's not a lot of value in a busted nuclear plant), there is almost no way for the public to have redress if such an accident did happen. all of these act as factors to say that nukes probably won't be getting approved for at least another 3 years are up. Stop voting for idiots who think it's fine to let companies screw over people without penalty and maybe they'll let the companies have their (somewhat dangerous) toys back.

      --
      That is all.
    6. Re:That should go along nicely... by micheas · · Score: 2, Informative
      NC was looking to build a waste-disposal site for low-level nuclear waste (generally stuff like rubber gloves used in medical procedures involving radiation or x-ray).

      From the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency definition of low level radiation.


      The radioactivity can range from just above background levels found in nature to very highly radioactive in certain cases such as parts from inside the reactor vessel in a nuclear power plant.


      Emphasis added.



      Basically, you can't dispose of medical waste without agreeing to dispose of nuclear power waste. A completely messed up situation.
    7. Re:That should go along nicely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few years ago, NC was looking to build a waste-disposal site for low-level nuclear waste (generally stuff like rubber gloves used in medical procedures involving radiation or x-ray).

      Approximately 2% of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste is medical in origin. The vast majority, around 80%, comes from nuclear power plants. What makes it called "low-level" is that it doesn't include (a)spent fuel rods, (b)elements heavier than uranium, or (c)uranium mill tailings.

      The relatively small amount of low-level nuclear waste that is medical in nature is fairly benign due to its very low level of radiation and short half-life. Unfortunately, the large majority of "low-level" waste is generally long-lived and quite radioactive.
    8. Re:That should go along nicely... by Farce+Pest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Japan? We never left. Same goes for Germany. We'll probably still have bases in Iraq in when 2065 rolls around, based on that performance.

      --
      This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
    9. Re:That should go along nicely... by mellon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look, there are five big issues with nuclear power:

      1. The waste is toxic, and not biodegradable, so it remains toxic for longer than the lifespan of any historical civilization.
      2. The waste can be used to build nuclear weapons.
      3. Reactors can melt down.
      4. Reactors can accidentally emit radioactive material into the atmosphere.
      5. Reactors wear out, and when they are no longer usable, the entire reactor is itself toxic waste, and remains that way for longer than the life of any known civilization. Tearing down the reactor inevitably releases this waste into the environment - the groundwater, the soil, and the atmosphere.

      It's quite possible that all of these problems can be solved. It's also true that in some cases, coal power is worse than nuclear. For example, fly ash from coal contains a certain number of parts per million of uranium, radium and thorium, depending on where it was mined.

      But let's be clear. Pebble bed solves the meltdown problem. That's all it solves. It doesn't solve the waste problem.

      Theory is that breeder reactors might solve the waste problem - in fact, what they allow you to do is extract about 75 times more energy from the same uranium, which is very cool indeed, and what's left is much less radioactive than what you started with (but it's still radioactive).

      Unfortunately, the best example we have of a fast breeder reactor is the Superphenix reactor in France. This was shut down in 1997 because it began to fail in exciting ways, prematurely, particularly due to problems in the liquid sodium (!) cooling system. So this technology, unlike pebble bed reactors, isn't as stable as one would wish.

      So we've completely addressed problem (3), and there's the possibility that problems (1) and (2) may be partially addressed by breeder reactor technology at some future time. But they aren't completely addressed even in the future, and aren't addressed at all in the present. Plus, we're still left with the other two problems, which are quite significant.

      So you do the math. What's the cost/benefit analysis for coal? For solar? For nuclear? For wind? For some combination of these? If you think the answer is easy, you probably haven't actually done the math.

      I think the reason for the wide disparity of opinions on this topic is that (a) people value different things differently, and (b) nobody is really even talking about the same thing.

      For example, when someone talks about recycling nuclear fuel with breeder reactors, they're speaking hypothetically, even if they don't know it, because the technology isn't yet mature enough to be able to say that it's actually usable in practice. All current practical experiments have thus far yielded failure, although some have been more successful than others, and we do know that the basic idea does work.

      Likewise when someone talks about getting energy from kites, it's also hypothetical, because nobody's actually doing it in production yet. Once again, there have been trials, and we do know that the basic idea does work, but we do not yet know if it can be used in practice, en masse.

      Both things are interesting, but when you're discussing energy policy decisions, neither thing is presently relevant, and neither will be until they have demonstrated success in production.

      Likewise, for some people, the value of generation techniques that produce no first-order pollution byproducts (i.e., combustion byproducts or fission byproducts) is more attractive than techniques that do produce these byproducts. It's important that we not let ourselves be fooled by the lack of first-order byproducts when the second-order byproducts overwhelm the first-order byproducts (e.g., the debate about the net energy cost to build a solar panel).

      But assuming that we are taking these factors into account, it's still possible that even if the generation cost of, for example, solar, in dollars, were more than the generation cost of, for example, nuclear, it might still be better to build solar, because we are not counting certain externalities which, while they don't cost in dollars, do still matter.

    10. Re:That should go along nicely... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would be more plausible if the environmental movement hadn't opposed nuclear energy under Clinton, and the previous Bush, and Reagan, and Carter. And I don't recall it being a big part of Al Gore's campaign, nor Kerry's. (I could be wrong about the last part, not having studied their campaign platforms.)

      - AJ

    11. Re:That should go along nicely... by Bastian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what in the hell does that even mean?

      It means to me that, given the Bush administration's current record on international relations and national security, putting up more nuke plants with people like him in power conjures images of scores of nuclear power plants with huge targets painted on the cooling towers, large cash rewards being posted for anyone who can bulls-eye one, and maps showing the locations of all of them along with their bounties.

      Let's wait until the country isn't being run by an administration that is hell-bent on giving people all over the world reasons to hate us while being so tunnel-visioned in on playing nepotism games and chasing white whales and ninjas in the bushes that it's incapable of putting up a solid, carefully-planned defense strategy.

      He's not evil. He just a causehead who has no fucking clue about anything but does have an incredible knack for making emotional appeals that keep people who are easily influenced thinking he's a well-balanced intellectual. I mean, come on, this is the guy whose idea of the most financially responsible thing to do with Social Security is to prop it up with a $2,000,000,000,000 loan.

    12. Re:That should go along nicely... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Some points to consider:
      • The waste is toxic, but compared to the amount of power it produces the level of waste is really really small. Nuclear waste represents a relatively small amount of the waste that we *already* are storing indefinitely.
      • Unlike many of the other toxic wastes we're dealing with, it *does* become less toxic (radiologically toxic, that is) over time. After a thousand years or so it's less radioactive than the original uranium ore.
      • Air pollution from coal plants kills tens of thousands of Americans *every single year*. Additional pollution controls might reduce this to a couple of thousand. Even if you accept that Chernobyl killed thousands of people (for which the evidence is extremely shaky) that's multiple Chernobyls, every single year, from coal.
      • You can't replace more than 10-20% of your grid with wind because it's too unpredictable.
      • Using the waste to build nuclear weapons is really difficult, at most. The "easy" way to build nukes is with highly enriched uranium (which is not used in nuclear power plants). The plutonium produced in normal reactor operations contains a lot more Pu-240 than bomb-grade plutonium, which makes it have a tendancy (to a first approximation) to blow itself apart before enough fission has occurred to make a really big explosion.
      • As for the risks of leaks and meltdowns, it could happen, but they seem to be vanishingly rare events.
      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  3. The warning signs have been around by tcd004 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yep, this has been creeping up on us for awhile, despite warnings from U.S. industry insiders. Both government and private funds for R&D are drying up.

    Still, some economists argue that China isn't growing nearly as quickly as it could. How could that be?

    One probable cause is that infrastructure for research and development has a long way to go in many developing Asian countries, especially China. Having some history behind your scientific community has its benefits. Thats why, even with our moral and ethical hurdles in the way, we're still winning the "great stem cell race." For now.

    (enjoy the plugs for great articles in my favorite magazine)
    tcd004

    1. Re:The warning signs have been around by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would have read your links, but I'm too lazy to use bugmenot this afternoon.

      As the share of world research resources invested in pharmaceuticals keeps increasing, it might be interesting to see trends in advanced education in the field. From my stint at a pharma college focused on research, I can tell you that the most advanced and groundbreaking research was being done by Chinese professors. And the field of doctoral candidates was dominated by Chinese and Indian nationals.

      From what I understand, most of that research is still being done in the US, but the brain drain has started.

      How long are we willing to wait until the most valuable research is being done elsewhere?

      Of note, corporate-sponsored researchers are motivated to produce more *profitable* treatments; government-sponsored research is not limited (as much?) by this, and so could produce treatments more beneficial to mankind... maybe even cures instead of treatments.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:The warning signs have been around by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Industry insiders are largely responsible for research cuts. When companies like HP, AT&T, Bell Labs, and many other former research giants cut back their activities to become just another consumer electronics company, it's no surprise that research in the US will be lacking. Until someone is willing to focus on more than next quarter's profits, this will be an ongoing trend.

    3. Re:The warning signs have been around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US position isn't going to be helped by the growing movement of people trying to weaken science education in this country. I'm speaking, of course, about Christian fundamentalists who want to eliminate the teaching of science wherever it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

      This is entirely incompatible with science, which is all about a method for finding the truth such that where it leads cannot by definition be circumscribed in advance.

      These people have a far greater chance of "destroying the country from within" than those who think that same-sex marriage is OK. First it's evolution, then it's astrophysics, then they'll find something wrong with quantum mechanics and want us to stop teaching students how to make microprocessors. Finally we'll rely entirely upon "atheistic Red China" for all of our new technology. That will be a great situtation for Americans.

      For the sake of the US and in fact the entire world, the people in control (high-ups in the executive branch, at least) must de-politicize science education now before we are doomed. PLEASE.

    4. Re:The warning signs have been around by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IP laws gone insane will kill research here if it goes on long enough. Our genetics research is crippled in all sorts of places by strategically held patents. Scientists can't share ideas the way they're supposed to because of non-disclosure, non-compete, and rest of the rest of muck. Science is the goose that laid the golden egg and corporates are running that sucker through a Tyson plant.

      The other problem is one scientists have largely themselves to blame for. If there is one thing a certain variety of scientist can't stand, it is an interested layman. Since they can't be bothered to explain at least some of the value of what they do, antiscience politicians tend to get elected who then CUT THE FUNDING for basic research. The only other place to turn to then is the corporate world which brings us right back around to the first problem.

    5. Re:The warning signs have been around by sgasch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Companies are short sited because shareholders are short sited.

      2. You can't have tons of government oversite and still expect a companies to foot large research bills. You brought up Bell Labs/AT&T. They invented UNIX, C, the transister etc... and then the US government stepped in and broke them up. What have they done since? Whether you like to admit it or not, Microsoft is currently spending a lot of money on research. If 75% of the people here had their way, though, Microsoft would be broken up and fined for being bastards... So you can't have your cake and eat it too.

  4. More people doesn't mean more smarts. by Eunuch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It may mean more tall people, but the future will be ruled by the few. With robots, transhumans, posthumans, and such--large masses of people just aren't needed.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  5. What do you expect? by donleyp · · Score: 5, Funny

    From an elementary school's billboard in my neighborhood: "Adequate yearly progress, once again!"

    This is what we get for handing our children's education over to the government.

    Moderators, please don't rate this post as "Funny", because it isn't.

    --
    You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
    1. Re:What do you expect? by ZiakII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is what we get for handing our children's education over to the government.

      Not to sound like a troll, have you considred sending your kid(s) to private school? After seeing public schools though my own experiance, I wish I got sent to a private school one with teachers who actually give a damn. (Yes there are some dedicated hard working teachers out there but majority of them are not)

    2. Re:What do you expect? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is what we get for handing our children's education over to the government.

      Given that government-operated schools are the norm and not the exception among industrialized nations, I am curious as to what kind of alternative system you believe would be preferable.

      Now obviously public schools don't have a 100% success rate, and there are significant pedagogical and bureaucratic problems with the current system that we should address. But the baby needs to stay even if the bathwater goes.

      "Adequate yearly progress" is clearly better than "inadequate yearly progress", no?

    3. Re:What do you expect? by Evro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what we get for handing our children's education over to the government.

      As opposed to China, where they've handed everything over to the government?

      --
      rooooar
    4. Re:What do you expect? by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to those charming private institutions that handle Chinese education, and handled American education back in the good old days.

      Oh, wait, good education has been done by many government programs. Oops.

      American education isn't bad because it's run by the government. It's bad because people don't give a crap about fixing it.

    5. Re:What do you expect? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Last I checked, the Government was also handling children's education WAY back in our glory days during WWII and the space race.

      What is a sin and a shame to me is the "one size fits all" mentality that shapes education. When are we going to finally grow up and realize that not everyone is cut out for college. Of course that would also require a measure of respect for the trades as a legitimate line of work, and not simply something for the "special" kids.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    6. Re:What do you expect? by donleyp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no question. I am sending my children to private school, but I am more worried about all the other children who will be educated by people who think "Adequate yearly progress" worthy of a billboard.

      My take: anyone making even a pretty mediocre living can attend to their children's education if they're willing to live within their means. For the rest, I would dearly love to see true competition in education and I beleive that school vouchers could be structured to acheive that.

      But this is not going to happen now that the "gimme" generation (aka baby boomers) has made just about everything the government's responsibility.

      Donley

      --
      You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
    7. Re:What do you expect? by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have too high an expectation of the commercial system. You expect that commercial education will mean that your kids can get a great education. I expect that, if parents are given the opportunity to send their kid to any school, and any school can get funding, that 60% of kids will end up at the Pepsi McSchool of Jesus.

    8. Re:What do you expect? by donleyp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There have been lots of great ideas for fixing it, but every single one of them have been shot down by the NEA.

      It is a sad state of affairs when the major private organization in our country helping to shape education policy is a teacher's union, who's interest lies with teachers, not students.

      Let me refine my point by pointing out that you can track the decline in S&E with the rise in the power of the Department of Education.

      --
      You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
    9. Re:What do you expect? by dillon_rinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When are we going to finally grow up and realize that not everyone is cut out for college.

      As soon as "elitist" isn't a dirty word. As soon as ethnicity-blind policies become the law of the land. As soon as we recognize that homo sapiens is subject to evolutionary pressures and its various subpopulations are variously adapted to their environments.

      Any leftist with a lick of political sense is now branding me a racist. Odd how anti-evolution the left becomes when you discuss apply the principles of evolution to the human race.

    10. Re:What do you expect? by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's more along this line:

      American education isn't bad because it's run by the government. It's bad because it's run by the politicians. If politicians focused more on the future of our students, they'd devote a greater share of our tax dollars on education. Instead, we worry more about the troubles of the day; a pointless war in a country half a world away.

      Giving money to education is not a bold move in America, like it should be. Hell, Gates has given TONS of money to educate kids, and he's still looked down upon as the scum of the earth for inventing Microsoft, which, like it or not, is the means to an end.

      We need to start caring about the future; nuclear reactors, hydrogen cars, an education system that doesn't leak students across the union, and the proper facilities to stop corruption from spreading through our government any more than it already has (even if people don't want to admit it). And if I could have my way, digital rights would be included in there some where. The only way these things are going to come about is if we mend our constitution and our law system from the hopelessly outdated system we put in place three hundred years ago, two hundred years ago and a hundred years ago, and replace it with fixes for the 21st century which will allow us to be the competitive powerhouse we were.

      Personally, I think complacency is the root of all evil, as through complacency comes money, and money's generally accepted.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    11. Re:What do you expect? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "When are we going to finally grow up and realize that not everyone is cut out for college."

      Maybe there should be a college for nerds and a seperate 'college' for jocks?

      Note the use of quote marks...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:What do you expect? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fixing it is an impossibility in most places, because the whole political machine of the Teachers Unions, the suppliers and contracters, etc. Once there is a system in place were people are making so much money from the failing system, only a person with more money will be able to change it... and that isn't an average parent.

      Any sort of educational reform in the U.S. is politically impossible. Homeschooling and private is the only way we are going to get good education for kids in the immediate future.

      Also, most "public" schools in the past were funded by local municipalities, or in some cases voluntary contributions from parents. The modern federal-education-leviathan is nothing like the "public" schooling before the 1960s (When the U.S. was #1 in education). When education was kept small and local, it was possible for people to have influence on it.

    13. Re:What do you expect? by linzeal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Get rid of most of the teachers after grade 5 or so and let people who can utilize the vast array of self-tutorials, peer-forums and the sheer power of the internet to learn. My niece is 12 years old and has advanced all the way to precalculus with a mother and father who know only basic arithmitic and has never been in a school or met a teacher. She is self-sufficient and is not some super genius or anything. Teacher-led instruction as the basis for education in a fast paced knowledge driven economy is damaging children before they learn you can learn for yourself, by yourself.

    14. Re:What do you expect? by ncmathsadist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, it's the perennial bitchfest on American education. Why don't our schools work like they should? Here's a view from the inside (I teach in a public magnet school).

      1. American culture is deeply anti-intellectual. Americans do not value teaching and learning. Look at the behaviour of our largest universities. Americans are interested in their children being credentialed; they for the most part don't give a fig if their children become sentient, civilized adults.

      2. Education has a second-rate image as a profession. Americans think that teachers should work "for the love of it". These same people think that a tepid middle relief pitcher should get 3 megabux a year 'cause its important for the home team. There is no star system for teachers. All are yoked in syzygy into rigid pay scales that do not reward performance. Well, Americans are getting what they pay for.

      3. Education starts in the home. Are you sending your child to school properly socialized so he can function effectively? Do you read to your chyldren? Does junior know his colors and shapes, or is he educated by the television?? This is probably the biggest source of the achievement gap in schools, tho' it ain't PC to talk about it.

      4. Schools STILL function in the industrial revolution model. Your average edhead says "Gee, don't one size fit all....?" Schools are, more often than not, tighly and centrally controlled like factories. Schools push values such as lockstep conformity. "Dont be different! That's bad!" Then their administrations sit and wonder why every kid is doing drugs as a teen. In the 21st century, people need to learn to think for themselves to be effective citizens. (this is a heretical and incendiary idea)

      5. It's OK in america to neglect gifted kids. "They will take care of themselves anyway" Uh, wrong. Tragically wrong. This is a topic for a lengthy disquisition. I have been a specialist in the field of gifted education for many years. The misconceptions held by the public on this issue are legion.

      It is not a pretty picture. And given our yahooish culture (highest cultural value in America: tits wiggling on a video screen) and the loutishness and selfishness of our business and political establishments, change isn't in the cards any time soon. Remember, it's always fat'n'sassy right until the very moment the roof cafes in. Hello Bejing.......

    15. Re:What do you expect? by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I had mod points I'd give them ALL to you. Your first point probably describes 90% our education systems woes.

      We, as a society, do not value academic excellence or achievement and THAT is what is killing our education system.

      I couldn't agree with you any more if you were paying me. ;-)

    16. Re:What do you expect? by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know some studies would disagree with presumptions that are not even your own that you state as fact. If slashdot and places like it are not an indication that at least one new subclass of human is emerging than I don't know what is. Evolution takes time but I think some of the stereotypical geek traits are undoubtedly genetic in nature at least in part or it would not explain the similiar nature of some intelligent people to exhibit them over vast geographic distances unless you solely attribute such to likeliehood of them using the same internet websites. I think most of us were what we are warts and all before we came here though.

    17. Re:What do you expect? by kabocox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree but I'll take your post from a slightly different POV.

      1. The US doesn't generally give a sh*t about math or science look at junior high and highschool. What are the 3 most popular groups? Football, cheerleaders and drillteam. I personally would like all sports banned from school except for intermural PE sports.

      2. I'm sorry, but in this point I strongly disagree with you. Why? Because I think almost all schools are making far too much money as it is. Note: I said schools not teachers. I honestly think that almost all school admin staff across the country should be fired ASAP. Most teachers can tell you that this would radically increase the money that reaches teachers. I'd honestly like fully itemized bills sent home from school in addition to report cards. That would change the educational landscape.

      3. I'm more neutral on this. I agree that any student that has a parent that forces the student to learn will generally outperform those don't. I don't think that teachers should expect any help though. I think teachers should expect any parental help as pure bonus. Honestly parents get pissed at alot of busy work that could be done in class that is assigned as homework that generally happens more in junior high and high school though.

      4. At first, I was going to agree. But then I thought about it. For the most part, you are given a rather wide choice of subjects in junior high and high school. My grip is pre-reqs designed in a why that forces a student into a "career" track. If you didn't take geometery early on, there is no way for you to double up and take Cal later on.

      5. You know. I hate the term gifted students. I was in gifted and talented for awhile. I decided shortly there after to avoid it like the plague. Why? Because most of the individuals that were admitted were trouble makers: those that would crack jokes, interrupt the teacher to gossip, and would talk or pass notes. I was happy that those students were there. They tested well. Testing is extremely easy to the talented. What is difficult is sitting down and listening. Heck, most school work could be done in 5-10 minutes unless designed to take longer. Gifted and talented folks pass through without a problem. Actually, in alot of respects, I think middle school through high school should be taught in the same manner with the same freedoms as college is now.

      I'm not really worried about China. Why? Because they'll cut off contact with the rest of the world once they are 20-30 years ahead of everyone else. In that time frame, the US will re-evaluate alot of things and get its act together. The US only shines when we have a good partner to compete against. China will drive the US forward like no one else could.

    18. Re:What do you expect? by j+h+woodyatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ncmathsadist writes: Hello Bejing.......

      Look on the bright side. America is outsourcing all that science and technology stuff to places where it can be done at substantially lower cost. In return, Americans enjoy lower prices for the things they use and everyone is better off for it. What's not to like about that?

      As another poster below says, the Market Has Spoken, and clearly the market doesn't place a very high value on Americans with an education in science and math. The market is never wrong about such things, you know--it's the most efficient allocator of scarce resources known to man.

      Oh, I know I know. America isn't a libertarian anarcho-capitalist utopia yet, so how can you say the free market wants shitty schools when we don't have a free market in schools in America? Oh but we do. We do. There are plenty of private schools and there are no laws expressly forbidding them, so private entrepreneurs are free to open up competing schools anywhere and any time they think there's money to be made doing it. So why are the shitty public schools complemented by a host of expensive and shitty private schools and a tiny percentage of completely unaffordable and exclusive private schools that actually work? Answer: most Americans don't want to spend money on schools, whether they're public or private, and that's apparent when you look at the market.

      They do seem to like bitching and moaning about the quality of the schools they'd rather someone else were paying to operate.

      --
      jhw
    19. Re:What do you expect? by natrius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get rid of most of the teachers after grade 5 or so and let people who can utilize the vast array of self-tutorials, peer-forums and the sheer power of the internet to learn.

      You're missing the point of a grade school education. Chances are, your niece is interested in mathematics in the first place. It's easy to pick up things that you're interested. The main point of grade school is to learn how to learn. Along the way you pick up knowledge that is nice for a productive member of society to have. If your niece doesn't like writing essays, she won't learn how to do that in a teacher-less form of education. Have you seen how much self-motivation most kids lack these days? Your niece is the exception, not the rule.

      It saddens me how much teaching is looked down upon as a profession when it is one of the most essential profesions out there. The problem with education in America is that we don't have enough able teachers. The plethora of bad teachers is why you think they're so expendable.

    20. Re:What do you expect? by trixillion · · Score: 2

      WWhat is your point exactly? That because apes have a broader genetic variance compared with humans, that therefore humans are not different. Your argument isn't just sloppy, it is silly. Three cheers for today's most ironic post.

      A couple of things to think about: Chimps have wider variance because they have existed in small isolated populations for millions of years. Whereas, aside from the most recent population bottleneck (only about 100-200k years ago) people have lived in larger, less isolated population groups. The less isolated and the larger the population, the less drift you will experience. So drift has occurred; just less than with chimps over the same time. After all we are clearly not all blond haired, fair skinned, blued-eyed and six feet tall. It would be very odd indeed if we experienced drift only in our physical traits. Some might go so far as to say that only a fool could believe such a thing; or someone with a well-intentioned agenda. For example, a very cogent academic argument has been recently made for drift in the Ashkenazi population with respect to intelligence - and not being jewish, I have no agenda in pointing that out.

    21. Re:What do you expect? by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is the internet where you can google calculus tutorial and if you have the aptitude learn the basics in a weekend and if you have access to matlab or mathematica begin to understand the fundamental tools used to converse at a reasonable level with people already in the field in a month or less.

      If you think a teacher is required to learn anything than you don't understand the value of educating yourself and I'm sad for you and anyone you influence as learning things without the help of others is a far more rewarding experience both intellectually and emotionally. Teachers can say a litany of things that are "required" to learn in a teacher/student enviroment but the fact that they resort to rehashing the same adages of a low student to teacher ratio to get more teachers employed in the public education racket instead of addressing the question of, "Why should a child be forced to learn at the pace of others in an enviroment that is structured after the needs of an agrarian population to work their children on farms during the summer forcing the artificial splitting of subjects into semesters?"

      I am more worried about the damage done to children by teachers than anything they can provide after a certain age. I'm also not saying that we should abolish all teachers either as a great bulk of the population need them to force them to do subjects that they would never engage on their own, but if you have to coerce someone to learn they are unlikely to amount to much anyways.

      I did not say they are evil, the teacher unions have that role already filled in the education game. What I said is that if there is an antiquarian of professions culling about that he is coming for your profession and that such a change is inevitable when the technology allows it. Don't worry people still make horse whips even in this day and age but I don't think many children will want to be taught in a classroom with other kids when they can get a personalized instructor who adapts to their needs and stays with them throughout their entire educational process.

      I may not be an expert but I've taken enough educational classes in my current University that they blackballed me from progressing any further stating that an essay I wrote on generation ships requiring the research and development of autonomous teaching enitities being installed as a backup in case of social degradation may have to be put in a position to cull ineffective members of that society to save resources as evil and warranting that I not be allowed to do student teaching in High Schools. I'm not an expert in education as is taught in schools but I am becoming an expert in mechatronic engineering which would allow me to directly contibute to efforts at designing such an autonomous system of machines to educate a populace raised from artificial wombs if a living generation model is doomed to failure.

      I don't know who you think I am but I do not heep scorn upon the hoary heads of acadamia without reason.

    22. Re:What do you expect? by ChenLing · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. I'm from China. I grew up there until age 8 (end of 2nd grade) when I moved to the US (1986) Teachers were the *most* respected profession. Yes, higher level teachers (college vs high school vs whatever) were respected more, but every teacher is highly respected. When I got home from school (this was typical), I did the homework given by my teacher, then the homework given by my mother, then more work because I was expected to do it. At that tender age I could do multiplying and dividing of fractions, long division, decimals, and basic algebra. Calculus is normally a 7th grade subject in China.

      --
      "You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
    23. Re:What do you expect? by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When one doesn't know the questions one will never go figure out the answers even if one has access to all the answers?

      Have you ever tryied to "just learn" without any targets or objectives?
      Great way to end up with a lot of of superficial knowledge, knowing many worthless things while NOT knowing many essential things.

      Some guidance is always needed, especially for children.

      The problem with the education system is not that teaching is bad. The problem is that measuring the results of teaching is:
      a) Done by measuring the ability to memorize instead of the ability to think.
      b) Continuously dumbed down so that the average TEST results of the studentsremain the same even though their average AQUIRED ABILITIES are going down.

      This perversely feeds back into the system, since teachers will teach and students will learn for the tests (and not for aquiring knowledge and abilities to be used in one's future life) and for a teach, having the average tests of a class match the expected average du jour is good enough.

  6. Emulation, not innovation by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China is still very much more a copier of technology than an innovator. Once they become successful innovators, then we have to worry.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Emulation, not innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Innovation requires some things. It requires that people have enough surplus that they can spend time innovating. If you're spending your whole time trying to scratch up a meal, you probably aren't innovating much. Innovation does therefore depend on the economy.

      Innovation depends a lot on culture. If you have a culture that discourages innovation then it won't happen. The reason we won the cold war against the Soviet Union was that the Soviets were actively discouraged from innovating. Totalitarian countries are bad at innovating. As long as the Chinese keep on discouraging democracy, free speech and the free flow of information, we can expect that they will be poor innovators.

      Unfortunately, the US of A is going down the same path as the Chinese. Things like the Patriot Act and the DMCA are real innovation killers. Paranoia about security could kill the economy more effectively than competition from China. There was an article in one of the papers this morning that said the cost of a car made in North America was increased $800 by paranoia induced red tape.

    2. Re:Emulation, not innovation by xactuary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a child in the 1050's, I heard nothing but disparaging comments about cheapo Japanese copies. 'Nuff said.

      --
      Say hello to my little sig.
    3. Re:Emulation, not innovation by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 2, Funny
      > As a child in the 1050's, I heard nothing but disparaging comments
      > about cheapo Japanese copies.

      Really? I would have thought you'd have heard all about those darn Normans always threatening to invade, and those pesky Vikings always raiding.

      Glad to see you didn't fall for the whole "people died young in the middle ages" meme, though. ;)

  7. Cultural difference by sczimme · · Score: 4, Insightful


    You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery.

    I didn't buy the paper, but would like to make one point:

    As long as the culture in the US continues to denigrate academic achievement and to glorify ignorance, this country will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in research and invention.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:Cultural difference by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as the culture in the US continues to denigrate academic achievement and to glorify ignorance, this country will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in research and invention.

      There was an interesting Op-Ed piece in AMS Notices this month. Let me quote the relevant passage:

      "For the next ten years of a now 28 year business career, I hid my mathematics background. It wasn't shame or embarassment that inspired my actions, as I am quite proud of my achievements in the discipline and feel strongly that mathematics is a major contributor to all of my business accomplishments. No it was the knowledge, based on experience, that talking about mathematics with those not steeped in the discipline would steer a business conversation away from business and onto an entirely different plane.

      What was the conversation? I am sure you have had it.
      Person 1: Dr. Schaar, I appreciated your comment on education policy and the role that corporations can play in long-range programs. You seem to have a such a deep understanding of what educators want and need. What is your background?
      Schaar: I am a mathematician and taught at the university level for several years.
      Person 1: Oh, I was never any good at math. Hated the subject actually. I never could figure out how I would use it after school and didn't get along with my teacher...

      I do not have to continue. But over the years I began to realise that there was somethign hidden in Person 1's remarks. There was an insinuation that Person 1's non-mastery of mathematics was a non-issue. She was a successful business person in spite of it. So there! Her lack of matery was validated by the business world, and also by her peers, who eagerly confessed their lack of mathematical savvy as if it invited entry into a secret club. These same leaders trumped their abilities in the business world, while downplaying the significance mathematics played in the equation"


      From "Mathematics in Public" by Dr. Richard Schaar, AMS Notices August 2005.

      I'm sure any other mathematicians here, especially those who have spent time working in the business world, will find that conversation entirely familiar and typical. People take pride in their failure to study and master mathematics. It is all too common. Yet as Dr. Schaar pints out later in the article, mathematics is increasingly necessary skill in the modern compter oriented business world. The skills of logical thought and deduction fostered even by basic mathematics are the foundations for a large amount of IT related tasks, let alone the more advanced mathematics that can be so very benficial in engineering and computer science. Dr. Schaar goes on to describe how he now continues such conversations:

      Person 1: Oh, I was never any good at mathematics.
      Schaar: Well, that is too bad. Were you any good at reading?


      His point is that being good at mathematics, and the logical thought it teaches is as vital in the modern business world as reading. We ought to e taking it far more seriously than we are. I agree.

      I'd like to make a further point though, having had exactly such conversation many many times myself. Whenever I probe a little deeper it is almost always the case that the person liked and was good at mathematics at some point, usually very early primary/elementary school, but at some point along the ay they "had a bad teacher", or were given the impression that mathematics was hard, fell a little behind - and once behind the problems compounded at higher and higher levels and they quickly grew to hate the subject. The "bad teacher" is an all too common explanation.

      Is it any wonder though? The people who most often go into primary/elementary school teaching are precisely thoe people who never liked and struggled with mathematics at high school. They lack the ability to provide a wealth of ways to look at the problem, and lack any interest or enthusiasm for mathemat

    2. Re:Cultural difference by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think those Person 1 are in for a big surprise. My work at a hedge fund has opened my eyes to the importance of mathematics. It's not just the analyst who must know math but also the directors. Most of our directors have their degrees in engineering. The financial world is moving away from shooting from the hips and bravado to disciplined, precise engineering of risks.

      What really annoyed in during high school and middle school was the prevalent idea that logic/reason is contrary to creativity. Anyone lacking skills in reasoning/math can compensate to themselves by claiming that they were creative. That's just dandy because there's no good way to measure creativity so they just hide behind that. Random ideas != creativity. From my experience, creativity requires at least a small measure of reasoning. In fact, some of the most creative people I know are very skilled at mathematics and computer science. The two are not exclusive but rather go hand-in-hand.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  8. It wasn't due to a "rapid development"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but rather due to capital flight. Our corporations, in an effort to turn a quick buck, intentionally transfered our high-technology manufacturing assets to asia. Our design centers were sure to follow.

    It only makes sense that a majority of future developments are going to come to us from Asia as we are no longer the experts -- they are.

  9. Is it just me... by ultramk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this remind anyone else of the dire warnings about Japan "taking over" in the '80s and '90s.

    This just reeks of fear-mongering. I half-way expect Michael Crichton to write some stupid novel about it.

    m-

    --
    You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    1. Re:Is it just me... by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Japan had a population roughly equal to half that of the US. In order for Japan to surpass the US, the average Japanese citizen would have to be twice as efficient as the average US citizen.

      China has a population roughly equal to four times that of the US. In order for China to surpass the US, the average Chinese citizen would have to be one quarter as efficient as the average US citizen.

      Now, do you have any reason to believe that the average Chinese citizen cannot be one quarter as efficient as the average American? Now imagine what will happen when the average Chinese citizen is as efficient as the average American. Then, imagine what will happen if/when the average Chinese citizen becomes as efficient as the average Japanese.

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    2. Re:Is it just me... by mschaef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "China has a population roughly equal to four times that of the US."

      Keeping this in mind, it's pretty naive to think that the U.S. will 'always' have a bigger economy than China. That would limit China to 1/4 the per capita wealth as the U.S., with all the commensurate limitations in health care, food, social services, etc. that implies. The U.S. (my country, BTW) will eventually have to get over itself and realize that it doesn't have to be either the biggest or most powerful nation. (After all, both are recent developments in and of themselves).

    3. Re:Is it just me... by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Central Planning isn't what doomed their R&D efforts.

      When you instead have competing R&D efforts, and the competing efforts are both profit-driven, you are very likely to end up with duplication of effort, and the efforts tend to be short-sighted.

      And when there is differentiation, often the inferior thread will have backers that will purchase the superior thread in an effort to destroy it. (example: nearly every product that came out of Microsoft).

      Central Planning has it's down sides, which can be eliminated by introducing a profit motive in competing efforts, but pure profit-driven R&D enterprise isn't optimal either. A balanced approach has a better chance of success. (which is why America has traditionally succeeded at this kind of thing, in the past, by investing public funds into R&D - but America's recent focus on ideological elimination of science, and public funding of anything, is going to put us at a disadvantage, as our efforts are increasingly short-sighted, driven by short-term profits, and use of financial maneuvering to eliminate competition, rather than the "better mousetrap" principle.)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    4. Re:Is it just me... by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 4, Informative

      "why is it that people perceive the Japanese as more efficient than Americans?"

      Here's an article that describes the situation.
      A good quote:
      "The paradox was that in the 90s stories on the front pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist were all about how the Japanese manufacturing industries through trade were driving US manufacturing industries into the ground and virtually wiping them out. And of course that did happen in consumer electronics -- the US basically got out entirely in the consumer electronics business. And the steel industry and the automobile industry came very close to being bankrupt, although not all companies in those industries were in that shape. But the industries themselves as a whole were in very bad shape because of, in large part, competition from Japan, which was able to deliver high quality products at lower costs -- yet the GDP per capita numbers at purchasing power parity exchange rates show that GDP per capita in Japan was roughly 30 percent below the US. So how could this be? And the only way to understand that is to look at the productivity of individual industries in Japan. What we found is that Japan has a dual economy. Yes, it does have some selected manufacturing industries that have high productivity, much higher than the corresponding US industries and in fact they have the highest productivity in their industries of any country in the world. And yet, the traded part of an economy is always a tiny fraction of the total GDP. A rule of thumb is that it's roughly at most 15 percent of the GDP. So what that says is that the standard of living is determined because the productivity of the country is determined by what happens outside these traded goods. Productivity of a country in total -- the average productivity -- is the average productivity of every single worker. So in that sense, every worker is equally important. If you have low productivity in the non traded parts of manufacturing and in the huge domestic service industry -- such as retailing and housing construction and so on -- you are going to have low average productivity even though you may have a handful of industries like automotive and machine tools and steel where you have the highest productivity in the world."

      Read the whole thing.

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  10. I think this is great by Frangible · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One thing I've always thought about is the huge, wasted potential of people who could become brilliant scientists simply not having educational opportunities elsewhere in the world.

    I for one care about science and the advancement of human knowledge far more than any sort of jingoism, and I'm very glad to see people in China getting the opportunities to use their talents better.

  11. The $5 comment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So who here spent $5 for the PDF before commenting?

  12. Two years ago.. by pickyouupatnine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My brother's company in California sent him to China for some work. When he came back after the two week trip, he immediately started learning Mandrin because the speed at which the chip production industry has been picking up scared him enough - that in case they fired him in America, he might be able to find work in China.

    As long as American institutions have the research dollers to invest into the universities - I don't think America will lose its research crown.

    I think China's simply playing catch up for now. But if my brother's experience is any indicator, then if we dont smarten up and invest even more into our research industry - then we'll be learning Mandrin too..

    R&D is one of the reasons why Americans have been ahead of everyone else - even after the manufacturing went to China. If that goes, then it'll truly be a nation of Walmart workers.

    --
    _Vishal www.squad9.com
  13. The obvious solution... by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is to raise taxes and give the schools more money.

    I mean hell, that's always worked so well in the past!

    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." --Benjamin Franklin

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:The obvious solution... by jdigriz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You only think you're being sarcastic. Actually, that's *exactly* what worked well in the past. During the Eisenhower administration, they passed the National Defense Education Act as a response to Sputnik and massively improved American science education. Taxation on income over 1 million dollars was at 90%. And America has dominated the world in science for the last half century. But with tax-cutters in power for 18 out of the last 25 years, things are starting to suck again. Amazingly, future results require substantial investment in the present. Taxation and public spending are every bit as much an investment as private investment is, except it is designed to benefit everyone rather than a wealthy few.

  14. Re:The Real Chinese Growth by sameerdesai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I agree on some part of your argurment it is not entirely based on theft. As well all know all science progress has been due to the result of collaboration on various studies and deriving from it. Once the ideas drain out on western front, necessity will drive the people in Asia to come up with novel ways and new ideas. Besides necessity is the mother of invention. It is a crude cycle and it will never end.

  15. What, us worry? by gsfprez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    at least our kids know how to be politcally correct, don't have the stress of having to know how to read their own diplomas, are sensitive to every kind of form of sexual proclivity by the time they are in 4th grade, have shitloads of self-esteem, and can be sure that when they or their neighbors with little or no english skills work so hard that they reach the pinnacle of academic achievement - community college - they can be sure that there will be free childcare for them and their 4 kids when the go to class after working the all night shift at McDonalds.

    why are we worrying about science? Thats for nerds that don't watch American Idol. Which is, in and of itself, a sad state of affairs when you look at it...that those people are who we collectively teach our children to idol.

    just so long as we can yell and scream and blame every problem in the country on Bush and Judge Roberts, why would you want to fill our kids' heads with crap like science? They won't have room for remembering Nelly lyrics! /bitterness and dispair

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    1. Re:What, us worry? by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
      just so long as we can yell and scream and blame every problem in the country on Bush and Judge Roberts, why would you want to fill our kids' heads with crap like science?

      You mean our Jesus-freak President? Who sold our children's and grandchildren's futures to fund a personal-vendetta war that he has NEVER been able to justify? We will be able to blame the Bush administration for the state of things for a long long time. He has had that huge of a negative impact on our society. We haven't even begun to feel the reprocussions of this misguided fool.

      Not that he can be blamed for everything, our society has been trained to be ignorant by the religious right for a while now. Video game that allows you to beat up and kill people? Hmm, OK. Wait, what!? There is a SEX scene in it?!!! AHHHHHHH! RECALL IT! Won't someone think of the children!!!

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    2. Re:What, us worry? by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      have shitloads of self-esteem

      Now this is one issue that probably is worth picking on. There is much effort in modern education not to damage the self esteem of young people. The problem is the belief that self esteem is actually important for achievement is actually rather poorly founded. There was a very good article in Scientific American at the beginning of the year that did some analysis of how self esteem actually correlates with the things low self esteem is claimed to case - the results were that the correlation was relatively poor, and certainly other factors were much more highly correlated. The study is, of course, far from comprehensive, and the results don't suggest that self esteem is meaningless. They do, however, suggest it is time to consider how seriously we take self esteem. Exactly how damaging is it to young children that they never learn what it is to fail? IS that oughweighed by the benefits of increased self esteem? The answers have been taken for granted, but perhaps we should consier this a little more carefully.

      Jedidiah.

    3. Re:What, us worry? by drooling-dog · · Score: 3, Insightful
      just so long as we can yell and scream and blame every problem in the country on Bush and Judge Roberts, why would you want to fill our kids' heads with crap like science?

      Especially when we're already the undisputed #1 in Creation Science...

  16. Bah.... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny
    Bah, what has science ever done for us?

    (queue monty python and the life of brian style response vs the romans)

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  17. Re:They will catch up to 2005 in 2015? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You didn't read carefully. It says they "May be able to produce more engineers" and they "may be able to catch up while spending less money proportionally."

    Crap if you ask me. They "may" have been able to do it for years, but they "haven't" done it yet, and they probably "won't" because their ideological restraints are even "worse" than "ours".

    This isn't to say that we shouldn't be getting off our asses and fixing some of the problems. Stem cell funding! Patent reform! Copyright reform! We need to provide resources and freedoms to the small innovator companies that historically produce the coolest stuff!

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  18. You get what you pay for by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is no surprise, but the extension of long-term trends of various sociological effects. When you have a country (USA) that looks down on intelligence (and yes, the culture for the most part does unless you live on the coasts or in academia), and you have huge sections of the country that put religion above science, or at least give it equal time, you have the basis for lower education standards. The geeks fight back, but they are always the minority.

    Now couple that with right-wing attacks on public schooling in general, bleeding the public schools systems dry in order to push private schooling, and things get worse.

    Now add in an economy where many of the jobs that really use your brain get offshored, and what's left are service jobs that require not as much education, and you have an increasing pressure not to care about higher education. Just get one of those service jobs and root for your team and have a beer after work and all is well in your world. Right?

    Meanwhile India gets the tech jobs, and China is our major creditor, and suddenly all those smart Chinese students think why should they bother coming to xenophobic and dopey America when they can get the good science education and jobs back home. Where the economy is strong, education is encouraged, science is not neutered by religion, and things are moving forward.

  19. Crown? by slobber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't quite understand what exactly the "scientific Crown" means, but on the balance I think this is positive news - science is not a zero sum game. What's invented in US works the same in China and vice versa. I don't view it exactly as US falling behind but Asian countries catching up because growth is always faster when you have lots of room to grow but then it slows down. Of course, US needs to do more to invest into and encourage better education to stay competitive. The fact that this is not currently the case is alarming.

    It is also good to hear that developing Asian countries are on a way to contribute to progress rather than dig their heels in and do everything in a futile attempt to stop it (as seems to be popular in some Middle East contries now a day).

    --
    "You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
  20. Re:The Real Chinese Growth by Sosarian · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's just a matter of time.

    The Hong Kong fashion industry grew out of the factories producing knockoffs of western designers, and now they are one of the fashion capitols of the world.

  21. Re:The Real Chinese Growth by bahwi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Haha, I always said the same thing about Japan and China, as you can trace most any anime back to some Chinese legend. Of course there are exceptions, but without China's old legends, Japan's anime industry would be about 15% the size it is now.

  22. Why we NEED the Math and Science Incentive Act! by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Informative
    From Ars:
    In an effort to increase the study of math and science at American universities, lawmakers are considering a bill that would pay up to $10,000 for student's accumulated loan interest through college. The benefits would be available to those studying math, science, engineering and technology, provided that after graduation students work in their fields for at least five years.
    This is what we NEED! Not only is engineering tuition usually more expensive than that for liberal arts, but there are plenty of bright kids turning to business and econ so that they can start making six figures right out of college. Money matters to students, and most are not willing to put themselves through the stress of engineering education only to be saddled with loans the first 8 years after school. This bill of course would not eliminate that, but it would defray the costs enough to make engineering much more attractive to freshmen.

    ANY bill towards reducing tuition costs is good, especially one towards engineering, math and science majors.
  23. To expand upon what another said above... by The+I+Shing · · Score: 2

    A poster above mentioned that ignorance is glorified, and I hate to admit that it's true in our dear sweet USA. People who get good grades and aspire toward academic achievement are labeled and taunted as "brainiacs" or whatever, while some dope fiend who can snap back at the teacher in some incomprehensible slang-based language is held up as the modern-day hero. I doubt that the same is true in China.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  24. Did you go to private school? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what we get for handing our children's education over to the government.

    You say that as if public education is a recent development. American Public Education goes back as far as the American Revolution, and has roots that go back even further. It sounds like you are not aware of this history, so here's a primer. Read and learn.

    Abandoning the poor people is bad for the American economy and American democracy. If anything, you can trace the growing ruin of American society to increased privatization and reduced funding of public services such as Public Education.

  25. Re:The Real Chinese Growth by gt623 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know how this got modded insightful.

    china's phenomenal growth was and is fueled by foreign (western) investors. i'm not denying ip theft, but that seems like a domestic issue (and maybe some complicated trade issues).

    my point is if china's growth is really caused by ip theft than why are the foreign companies setting up shop in china? it seems like a set up for failure. It seems more likely they go to china cause they can get cheaper R&D. And thats the cause of economic growth.

  26. Let me see if I understand you by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're saying that America has a freedom and government problem? Is this compared to the enlightened government of China?

    One of the main points is that China can in fact force their people to go in the direction that they want without having to deal with things like community interaction. Can you imagine the emminent domain kerfluffle over something the size of the Three Gorges Dam project if it was done here in the US? Heck a highway bypass takes forever here.

    And hey, if the populace gets TOO rowdy they can just send in the tanks and mow 'em down.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  27. We need to fix our compensation system first by psykocrime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A huge part of the problem is the way we compensate employees in the US. Engineers simply are not paid as well as they should be, and executives and managers are over paid. This creates a dis-incentive to enter engineering, or at least creates an incentive to view moving out of engineering and into management as "advancement."

    US companies need desparately to eliminate the artificial ceiling on the advancement of pay for engineers. IBM has made some small efforts in that direction by creating the "Distinguished Engineer" title, so that highly skilled engineers can be "promoted" and paid more, without being forced into management. A few other companies have similar initiatives, but that's not nearly enough.

    If we want to attract workers to high tech fields, we have to give them a reason to want to do so. And quit wasting multi-million dollar salaries and millions of dollars of bonuses on inept CEOs like Carly Fiorina.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  28. 1998 called and wants its' xenophobia back by evilmousse · · Score: 2, Insightful


    seriously, what good does this thinking do?
    best of luck to all the asians. i hope we do well too. screw this fetish with being #1 in everything.

  29. Not Population. by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, for one, Europe only ceeded its "science crown " to the USA because of the World Wars. Since then, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Western Europe are science and technology powerhouses. Taiwan is especially instructive, as they speak the same language and have many of the same cultural factors. Despite their miniscule sliver of the total Chinese population, they're way ahead. Population don't mean much if most of your people are living in squalor due to repressive and corrupt government.

    The US's open-door policy for researchers from around the globe to study and research in the US had more to do with getting the "crown." The metling-pot mindset, especially popular with educators and institutions, allowed the best and the brightest to come to the US to do their work.

    That, and the US is, like, you know, a first world country? Once China and India and Indonesia can get phone and power service to the medievil huts the majority of its population lives in, then I'd worry about the massive population difference.

    New Zealand and Finland are good examples of miniscule countries in terms of population that are doing very, very, very well for themselves on the science and technology front. New Zealand is isolated by location, and Finland by language. They still have engineering firms and physicists that are world class.

    SoupIsGood Food

  30. Re:They will catch up to 2005 in 2015? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the meantime, most science and math inclined Asians flock to the US for their education, and then later, for their careers. In that way America "brain drains" many other nations. Very few return to their homeland today, because they still consider America the "land of opportunity." And compared to most areas in China's command-economy, it truly is. As for Japan and Korea though, that's another question...

  31. Re:The Real Chinese Growth by koreth · · Score: 4, Informative
    until such time as they can get leading foreign scientists to relocate to China
    You mean relocate back to China? There are an awful lot of bright Chinese expats working in other countries.

    As for the broader point... I'm not sure which ridiculous extreme is actually better for the growth of a technological base: "Copy whatever you want, who cares if the originator doesn't get a dime" as in China, or "Don't write that code, there might be a ludicrous patent you'll have to spend $10 million getting declared invalid" as in the US. Certainly one can point to US industries such as the Hollywood movie business(*) that wouldn't exist today without rampant violation of intellectual property laws in the past.

    Personally, I think China is going to give the west a rather solid run for its money in software. Our fervor for ever-stronger intellectual property laws is a legislative gun with which we're taking repeated potshots in the direction of our feet. I've been involved in IP disputes on both sides, and they are almost always big wastes of time and money that don't end up benefitting anyone but the lawyers. To the extent that Chinese companies won't have to suffer from that overhead, they'll be in stronger competitive positions. All of their web sites will have one-click ordering, one can assume.

    Finally, the "they're just copying our stuff" point was a pretty common accusation leveled at Japan in the 80s and early 90s, if memory serves. It seems to have proven itself untrue over the years, and I have every expectation the same will be true of China.

    (*) The reason the movie studios are in Hollywood is that they didn't want to pay royalties to Edison Labs for use of Edison's patented film production equipment. So the early would-be studio bosses headed west, where they'd be able to strike it rich before the folks on the east coast could track them down to demand payment. For some reason you don't find that little factoid on any of the movie studios' "history of Hollywood" web pages. Reference.

  32. Not all bad by NineNine · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say that it's not all bad. What we lose in scientific-ness, we more than make up for with our awesome Jesus-osity! We may be dumber, but we're Holier!

  33. 60's philosophy on waste management by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Informative
    Oh, and yeah, there are a lot of dumb greenies who think it's still the '60s and all nuclear power is teh evil.

    Nuclear power is "still in the 60's" when it was OK to run a company, filling up your back lot with industrial waste, until you ran out of space, or went out of business, found somewhere to hide it/dump it, or all of the above. The name of the game in industry is "make our waste someone else's problem" or "make it go away". Dump it into the local river, into the sea, in a pit, or throw it up into the air...and hope nobody notices. This is precisely how current nuclear plants handle their waste; they drop barrel after barrel into concrete bunkers filled with water in their back yard, thinking some day it'll just disappear, or they can fold the company and run, leaving the government with the god-aweful mess (hint: metal containers, water...)

    Right now, the US Government believes that the solution to the problem is to make it Nevada's problem (or is it New Mexico, I forget?), but either way, it's just another variant of "throw it somewhere out of sight".

    When we have a way to make power and take the waste products and make them harmless in SUBSTANCE (not in CONTAINMENT), give me a buzz and I'll stand outside on the street with a pro-nuclear sign. Until then, I'm not willing to support a technology which will be guaranteed to be a major liability or outright disaster in a few hundred years.

  34. engineering prestige by 2ms · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's because technology is created by engineers and in China, India, Germany, etc. engineering is the most prestigious field of all.

    In the US people only value giant houses, rims, expensive watches, luxury cars w/ wine glasses in tv ads for them. Noone even knows what engineers do, they just admire doctors and lawyers for having lots of dolla bills and bling. Meanwhile, legal and medical cost are far and away the highest in the world.

    Visit the engineering building at any university in this country and you wont even find anyone who speaks english -- it's all exactly Chinese and Indian people receiving stipends in addition to free tuition courtesy of US govt grants and then head back to their own countries, contributing nothing to tech in the very country that paid for their education.

    1. Re:engineering prestige by BigMFC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Visit the engineering building at any university in this country and you wont even find anyone who speaks english -- it's all exactly Chinese and Indian people receiving stipends in addition to free tuition courtesy of US govt grants and then head back to their own countries, contributing nothing to tech in the very country that paid for their education."

      You're right in that it is mostly people of other nationalities, however, remember that

      a) they are required to pay far more in tuition fees than US nationals
      b) the buying power of their currency means that they are (relatively) paying even more. This is why stipends are necessary in graduate work if you want to attract the best and brightest.
      c) the research and publications they produce contribute to the US tech industry.
      d) Many of them CANNOT stay because of stringent immigration requirements

      The rapid development of China and India is also partly due to the initial lack of infrastructure. This allows a 'leapfrogging' effect in which they bypass one generation of infrastructure and move to the newest. (Look at the adoption patterns of 3G) This means that they will be slower to adopt the next generation of technology whereas the US and similarly developed countries may be better positioned.

  35. Good!!! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All those decades of a culture where intelligence is derided and ridiculed, and vacuous beauty or the ability to do things with a ball are hailed as things to be blindly worshipped are finally coming home to roost.

    The endless raging river of media vomited images of the intelligent person being something that should be made fun of and looked down upon, washing over generation after generation of ill-educated and hyperactive minds, worming its way into every single crevice of the collective coma is appearing as a giant sinkhole after eroding away all support beneath the surface.

    And you think this news will stop the stupidization of this society? Dream on. 99% of the population will never even become aware of it. They'll be blithering about red states and blue states and angels and demons and what whore Justin Dumbass Timberlake is fucking this week.

    Harsh attitude? Tough shit. I have met parents who were bothered when their children did *too* *well* in school, lest they be considered "brainiacs" or "geeks". People aren't remotely harsh enough on these sorts of memes.

    I was tapped out of tolerance on this front years ago. I'm on my way to retire in my early 50's, and then I'm outta this dump. Sit an wallow in your celebrity gossip, sports teams composed of sociopaths who are forgiven every crime by their followers and your endless wasteland of (pseudo)reality television and basing scientific legislation on ancient fairy tales.

  36. Re:Not sure how this is a troll... by crotherm · · Score: 2, Insightful


    You dared to give Bush a compliment. While I am no fan of GWB, I do think we should start building new nukes based on the latest technology. Of course, there is all coal we have which nukes would replace.

    --
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
  37. Every empire has its end by tulsadano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm curious why Americans are so shocked that the world preeminence we have enjoyed for a century looks like it will come an end in the next few generations (if we're lucky).

    History is in fact rife with empires that rose to politcal, military and cultural dominance and then (for whatever reason) saw it slip away. The English before US. The Spanish before them. The HRE, Romans, Egyptians...

    Why on earth do Americans think, "Oh, but the American world dominance will be the one that lasts forever?" Didn't the English believe that in the eighteenth & nineteenth centuries? The Spanish in the fourteenth - seventeenth centuries? ...

    It is a fact of history: Cultures rise to dominance and then fade from dominance. America is just fulfilling the eon old historical pattern. Maybe China will be the next in line; Maybe an unified Europe; Maybe India; Maybe a repeat of the middle ages where there was no global power. I don't know. But I do know, that eventually America will fall from its penacle. No doubt about it.

    1. Re:Every empire has its end by jstott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm curious why Americans are so shocked that the world preeminence we have enjoyed for a century looks like it will come an end in the next few generations (if we're lucky).

      History is in fact rife with empires that rose to politcal, military and cultural dominance and then (for whatever reason) saw it slip away. The English before US. The Spanish before them. The HRE, Romans, Egyptians...

      Because we're even worse at studying history than we are at science?

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    2. Re:Every empire has its end by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, with the exception of the previous 3-4 centuries, China has been at the forefront of world civilizations. Their level of iron production during the Han dynasty would not be matched by the West until the 17th century. With China churning out 800,000 graduates with technical degrees every year, it looks like they are going to return to the front again, unless they or someone else do something stupid and start a world war.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    3. Re:Every empire has its end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonesense. The success of the US is directly related to it's Christian foundations. Our faith is what has led to our success. Our problems over the last few decades (abortion, the perverted gay agenda, etc.) are due to our straying from the true path as laid out in the Bible.

      In other words, though you intellectually challanged leftists can't understand it, our God, being the one true God, will ensure our success as long as we live our lives according to His plans.

      The empires that came before us no doubt strayed from the teachings of God, thus they lost their way. 9/11 would never have happened if the US were truly a Christian nation - our God would not have allowed it.

  38. So what does that say about Intellectual Property? by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A bit harder to protect than we thought it was, then? Hell, I know a lot of people telling me explicitly that they won't apply for patents because it'll allow corporations to use them, and they will get virtually no money for it. If their idea's totally unheard of, then they'll make the millions, and be fine and dandy.

    If we had an open technology interchange, we'd all be making progress at the same rate. Any new technologies invented or discovered could be passed along for the common good, and the people making money could be the various different implementers of the technology. Perhaps the government should get into the Knowledge Farming business; simply churn out enough ideas and let big business implement.

    If you wanted to be less radical, simply shorten the length of patent protection, and for certain, disallow patents of stupid, unoriginal things. This is simple enough to do; pay a few college students 10 bucks an hour to go through a stack of patent documents, do a quick google, use common sense and rule against patents. The ones that get past the students go on to supervisors, who make sure patents are being well put down (all they really have to do is check a website, or actually read the patent aloud and laugh their asses off). The ones that nobody can find a problem with, goes on to a small public review (say pull in people like jury duty), pay them a few bucks a day and have them listen to a company explain their patent, why it should be aloud. Make patents a courtable ideal, and there will be much, much less abuse of the system, as they realize they can't pass bullshit on people.

    I dunno.. I have strong opinions, but you've got to agree that it's rediculous that we're churning our asses off with new technologies, and meanwhile they're taking all of our exploits, making more of their own, and at a rate that we can't possibly ever hope to keep up with. If we share, we'll both succeed. If we become secretive, nobody will, and really, patents are just the legal way of being secretive (of course, not getting one is "top secret", but not without it's own problems).

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  39. The parent poster has a point .. by cje · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. albeit one that was not expressed very diplomatically.

    When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, it sent a shock wave through the collective American populace. From coast to coast, people were asking themselves a simple question: "How could this have happened?" There was a sense of general dismay that the Soviets had won this particular leg of the Space Race, and Americans were more or less united in the goal of making sure that it didn't happen again.

    As a result of this, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), which set new standards for math and science education and established low-interest loans for college tuition. We recognized a threat, we took it seriously, we invested in our educational system, and the result of that investment was the generation that built the tools with which we won the Cold War.

    Fast-forward to Modern America, and not only does it seem that we did not learn from that lesson of the past, but we're also moving in the wrong direction. Test scores are slipping, math and science education are being regarded in some circles as irrelevant (and even as "dirty" in some more extreme circles), and I've even seen the phrase "college-educated" used as a slur. (As if having a college education is a bad thing!)

    It is dismissive to suggest that the rising and disturbing trend of religious fanaticism here at home has nothing to do with this trend. No offense intended to anybody's beliefs, but it should be obvious that the "6000 year-old Universe" crowd has far more political clout and organization than they did (say) ten years ago, and it is dangerous to dismiss them as "quaint" or "traditional." When I think "quaint", I think of Norman Rockwell paintings; it is hardly an adjective that I would attach to a movement that (I would contend) is a threat to the national security and the future of the United States.

    Of course, it's equally dismissive to suggest that only religious fanaticism is responsible for our nation's disinterest in proper education. We've got a culture that is obsessed with shark bites, missing white women, and celebrity divorces. We've got parents that are more worried about having better landscaping or a bigger SUV than their neighbors than they are about their own children's education.

    Personally, I don't care so much about the root causes of the problem as I do about the problem itself, and I'd like to see it fixed. Maybe what we need is a new national committment to math and science education, much like the one that served us so well in the past. Maybe what we need is a National Defense Education Act for the new millennium.

    Sadly, however, I have very little faith that such an act would even make it out of committee in today's climate.

    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
  40. Public education by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I have seen, and it is a lot, private education and quasi-private education such as charter schools, do an apalling job of science and math education. Sure, exceptions can be cited, but the overall level is well below that of public schools. Teaching these subjects requires smart, motivated teachers with the time and resources to do the job. You are more likely to find these in a public school. We have a fine Catholic school system with a high school and two elementary schools in our area, but they don't teach AP anything. There is no math past Algebra II, no third year foreign language, and only one course each in chemistry, physics, and biology, all taught by the same guy.

    A lot of the problem is cultural, in my opinion. It's not cool to be smart these days in the US. The President talks like a dumb fucker, and he and his fundamentalist buddies spend a lot of time, energy, and money bashing science. Funding for research is being cut left and right, so its no surprise that the center of science and technology is moving elsewhere. If you want to get your bad heart replaced with a cloned replacement, you're going to find yourself in Chiba, not Chicago.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  41. Most Americans are ignorant by gosand · · Score: 4, Insightful
    American education isn't bad because it's run by the government. It's bad because people don't give a crap about fixing it.

    Well, to be accurate, they just give more of a crap about everything else, like funding an unjustified war. Or taking care of big business. Or any of other 1000 things that the government wastes OUR money on. Everyone gives lip service to bettering education, yet they love to say ignorant things like "well, at least teachers get the summer off".

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  42. Hardly a surprise. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This could all be interpreted in many ways, but at face value, this is hardly surprising.

    The United States, at large, pushes ridiculous religious dogma that infiltrates and dillutes science and science education with theology.

    This country spends untold billions on its military and and related conflicts, diverting money from education and research.

    Certain government entities almost routinely intimidate scientists and alter research findings that don't support a money or dogma-driven agenda.

    We have a society that demonizes the educated, and also frequently for religious reasons, blames education for a break-down of morals.

    Corporations pander always to the lowest common denominator when it comes to offering products and services rather than depend on a thinking population.

    We eat junkfood like there is no tomorrow, effectively eliminating the chance of a healthy lifestyle that is essential to a healthy brain and mind. (Yes, bad food makes you stupid.)

    I could go on, but that would just get too boring. Also, none of this would be too hard to defend (I'm not providing refernces because I'm on a cell phone at the moment). Really, when you think about all the nonsense and silly behavor which saturates our society, what do you expect? A population of enlightened thinkers?

  43. The problem with North America imho is... by EulerX07 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That North America glorifies cash as the ultimate goal of everything. If you've got 2 phds and are leading breakthrough research for a modest wage, you are considered less of a success then high-school dropouts who are making 6 figure (or more) salaries. Think of all the College drop-outs running amok in the billionaires club, you think for a second they respect the intelligent researchers that make the breakthroughs for their company? Think again, they think they're the smart ones.

    I hear all the time on the radio. The talk-show jocks will mention that they didn't go to college and are making a killing, will take calls from people who started a roofing business or whatnot and are raking 250k, and laugh together at the college graduates making 35-60k a year.

    Not that this is a new phenomena, the history of science is filled with geniuses that contributed monumentally to science but lived modestly.

  44. Re:Zero Sum Game and Education by Vulture101 · · Score: 2, Informative

    USA number one in freedom, ROFLMAO

    GDP; last time i saw Luxembourg was number one and number two was Norway.

    So what else are USA number one besides arrogance ?

  45. Wanna learn Chinese? by koreth · · Score: 2, Informative
    I started learning Mandarin earlier this year in part because I think the winds are blowing in such a way as to make it a useful job skill in the not-too-distant future. Also because it's fun and challenging, and because I want to spend time traveling in rural China. Here are some resources for folks who want to dip their toes in.

    "I Can READ That!" is a gentle introduction to reading Chinese characters, focused on stuff you'd see while traveling in China. Won't really teach you how to say anything, though.

    For self-paced learning of conversational Mandarin, nothing beats the Pimsleur language programs. I can say from personal experience that after listening to just the first-level program, you will be able to ask for stuff in restaurants (and drop a few jaws in the process if you don't look Asian!), hold simple conversations with Chinese speakers, and start to make a little sense of the dialogue in Chinese movies and TV shows. There are three levels, each with about 15 hours of material.

    If you have a Palm handheld, PlecoDict absolutely rocks for building up your vocabulary of both spoken and written Mandarin. It has a great graduated-interval flashcard mode.

    The New Practical Chinese Reader is the latest edition of the textbook that's been used in just about every introductory Chinese language course in the English-speaking world in the last couple of decades. It is available with cassette tapes to help with pronunciation.

    For more vocabulary, both spoken and written, Rosetta Stone is good. Its major weakness is that it uses the same vocabulary words for all the languages it covers, and the word list is based on some Western assumptions; some things that take just one word in a typical western language take several in Mandarin, and you find yourself getting a small flood of new words with no clear idea of exactly what each one means on its own. But once you've learned the basic conjunctions and so on, that's not a big deal.

    For actually learning how to write (stroke order) there's Easy Chinese Tutor, not a great piece of software but the material is decent and it even comes with a bunch of character tracing sheets you can print out and practice on.

    Zhongwen.com has a bunch of good resources.

    What I really want, though, is for someone to do the equivalent of Destinos for Mandarin. Maybe in the form of a historical kung-fu soap opera comedy drama fantasy like the awesome Tian Xia Di Yi. I'd pay good money for that!

  46. Yeah...but only the U.S. can outlaw evolution by joelsanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only is the U.S. losing ground in high technology exports, but its very capacity to develop new technologies is declining rapidly with respect to the rest of the world.

    So what? In the U.S. we can outlaw evolution. We'll just change science when and if needed.

    "Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community" [CNN].

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  47. Blame the overpaid CEOs? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I blame the overpaid CEOs. For just a small reduction in their ridiculous saleries, they could avoid overseas outsourcing and kept technology jobs here, which is one of the best ways of reinvesting in technology.

    Very true, but our market system here in the US, as opposed to say, the EU, encourages one or two quarters of forward looking, as compared to the typical five to ten year forward looking planning the rest of the world enjoys.

    Sadly, most shareholders aren't even permitted to vote on the CEO/exec salaries, an obvious loophole ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  48. No Wonder by linuxhansl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In no particular order:

    1. Funding slashed for public education.
    2. Lawyers fighting trivial patent battles (instead of that money being used to innovate).
    3. Companies suing their own customers for copyright infringement
    4. "Infotainment" instead of informed news. Fox News anybody?
    5. Controlfreak-behavior everywhere. Controlling what people with their information, controlling foreigners/terrorists/everything, etc.
    6. Manipulated Science Papers to receive funding.
    7. Polically motivated resaerch to bring a certain politically favoured outcome.
    8. Removing of non-PC topics from school books (like "fanatism", "racial issues", in some cases "evolution theory").
    9. Huge defense budget (instead of using the money otherwise).
    10. Religious (christian) fundamentalism.
    11. Campains to make the US the most disliked country on this planet, even by its allies.
    12. etc/etc/etc

    Honestly, who is surprised? This maybe what currently the majority of the (US) people want, but these same people should realize that actions have consequences.

    Europe isn't much better either.

  49. Right on! by jgardn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    3. Education starts in the home. Are you sending your child to school properly socialized so he can function effectively? Do you read to your chyldren? Does junior know his colors and shapes, or is he educated by the television?? This is probably the biggest source of the achievement gap in schools, tho' it ain't PC to talk about it.


    My son, who is now four, can read "Green Eggs and Ham" and is working on the words in "Red Fish, Blue Fish". I read to him every night religiously, and I am asking him comprehension questions. Although he was slow in learning to speak, he is definitely ready now. Plus, he is learning Korean from his mother.

    5. It's OK in america to neglect gifted kids. "They will take care of themselves anyway" Uh, wrong. Tragically wrong. This is a topic for a lengthy disquisition. I have been a specialist in the field of gifted education for many years. The misconceptions held by the public on this issue are legion.


    Except that gifted kids aren't much different from regular kids! All the studies I've seen show that if you challenge a kid, they will rise to the challenge. That means that we shouldn't classify them into "smart" and "dumb". We should be teaching them all as if they were all smart! As far as I can tell, the only factor in whether a kid is ready to learn is whether they are motivated. Kick all the non-motivated kids out, tell their parents to motivate them, and we can challenge the kids we have and give them the best education in the world.

    Kids should come into high school ready for college. They should leave high school with what now passes for a four-year degree. There's no reason why we have to wait until they are 19 before we can really start teaching them. You'd be surprised what thse 14- and 15-year-olds are able to comprehend. I've had some seriously deep rational conversations with boys from this age, and these boys are by no means bright. Why aren't we taking 14-year-old kids and showing them Calculus and Physics and how transistors really work? I know they're ready for it because I can teach it to them and I'm not even a professional!

    In order to get there, middle school should be what high school is today. The kids should learn to devour technical books. They should wrap up their ability to compose English and to reason with mathematics. They should get a taste of what is coming in high school.

    Which means in elementary school it is absolutely critical that they master the basics. If you can't read, you can't get into 3rd grade, plain and simple. If you can't read a thick book and understand it, you can't get out of 6th grade. If you can't add, subtract, divide, multiply, and solve basic algebra problems, you won't see middle school.

    Kick out the non-motivated kids, let them know that they had better change their attitude or else life is going to hit them like a semi-truck at 2AM on the interstate. Kids MUST get educated, and fast, or else the U. S. of A. will become a third world company as all the tech companies are forced to leave for India and China.
    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  50. A race that is "backward" here isn't so elsewhere. by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is a counterexample to your arguments.

    Ever been to Britain? Indians and Pakistanis occupy the social status that African Americans occupy in the US. They dwell mostly in inner cities. They are poor. They do most of the shit-work. They are derogatorily referred to as "Pakis" by the white mainstream. They form street gangs. The liberals and conservatives debate ad-infinitum about the causes of their backwardness. Of course, the few that break the mould to become professionals/businessmen are considered to be the exceptions that break the rule.

    Go to the US. What a difference! Most of the Indians and Pakistanis are well-educated. They are affluent and live in posh suburbs. They may not be accepted by the mainstream, but nobody really considers them inferior in any way. The tech companies are full of them.

    If that is not an argument for environment over heredity, I don't know what is.

    Magnus.

  51. Re:Zero Sum Game and Education by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is hated largely because we are number one in terms of ... freedom

    Freedom, n. Exemption from the stress of authority in a beggarly half dozen of restraint's infinite multitude of methods. A political condition that every nation supposes itself to enjoy in virtual monopoly.

    -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1906)

    Almost a century later and just as accurate as ever.

    Jedidiah.

  52. Re:Zero Sum Game and Education by kocsonya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > America is hated largely because we are number one in terms of GDP, freedom, etc. I say let someone else take that spot at the top (at least in GDP) so the rest of the world can hate them for a while.

    America is not hated because you have more GDP or freedom than the rest of the world. You are hated because you attack and destroy countries and sovereign governments when your economic interest dictates that, in the name of "liberating" the population (well, the part which you do not kill) while you do not give a hoot about hundreds of thousand dying when there is no money for you in it.
    You are hated because you toot around against WMDs whlie you are the largest developers of named WMDs and, in fact, the only one who used nuclear weapons against civilian targets.
    You are hated because you refuse to care about the environment because it would hurt your bottom line and the rest of the world suffers from your ignorance. You are hated because you define what "freedom" must mean to the rest of the world: the American Way of Life. Everyone who thinks differently is an enemy of Freedom and Liberty and the enemy of the US of A.
    You are hated because you set up dictators when it suits you then try to depose them, with all your military might, when they do not toe the party line any more. Never mind how many people die in both turn and never mind what gets destroyed, as long as weapons sale profits are high enough.
    You are not hated but looked down for touting freedom when you had seggregation just 30 years ago, for warning parents that the Origin of Species contains dangerous theories that are not in the Bible, for having a patent system that allows you to patent a way of combing your hair to cover a bald spot, for cranking out movie after movie with no plot but more blood and explosion than a slaghterhouse hit by a Pershing and you call it "culture" but in the same time you have no problem destroying many thousand year old remnants of human history - all in all, that was not American, thus it must have been worthless. You are looked down for being the largest porn manufacturing industry but with an unbelievable hypocricy make nudity a deadly sin. You talk about freedom but ban gay marriages. You talk about women's rights but ban abortus even to an underage rape victim.
    The idea that the world envies you is false. It comes from the idea that the US is, by definition, the best. Therefore obviously the world wants to be like the US just evil forces want to stop development and in order to liberate the world in their quest to finally living "our way of life", as your great leader puts it in every speech, you should attack them by economic, political and military needs. The fallacy in the whole ideology is that the rest of the world does not want to live like you. Europe appreciates her own decadent ways you know, with all that culture rubbish and lack of rights to have machine guns but with some rights of not being killed by your fellow citizens. Asia has a culture that is a lot more ancient than even Europe's and they seem to be doing reasonably OK with it, thank you very much. Africa is just too poor to have its priorities around freedom and ideology, they think about the food and water and medication more than their liberty.

    Noone would have a problem with the US wanting to lead the world.
    The problem is that you do not want to lead, you want to rule.

  53. BANANA... by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is that we've now gone from NIMBY to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)!

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  54. Already used my mod points, by Tetravus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    but I'd mod you up if I could.

    The neglect of gifted children is one of the worst things that occurs in the public education system. For those children who are gifted and could succeed, there is no reason to strive. They would be belittled by their peers and given no additional resources. For those children who are gifted and have concomittant special needs (i.e. can finish assigned reading in 1/2 the allotted time and then disrupt the class because they're bored, does the teacher have anything for them to do afterwards?)

    You know the saying about the first 80% of an objective being easy to achieve? The next 10% is challenging, the 5% after that very difficult and the final 5% almost impossible. For some reason our schools are attempting to get the final 5% onto par with the first 80% through mainstreaming of students who may never produce average results; simultaneously they are ignoring the 10% of potential high achievers who may require more stimulation to really bloom.

  55. haythuns! by flacco · · Score: 3, Funny
    if jaysus wanted us to be the leeders in th devul majick den he woulda made us the leedres! if jaysus wnts thu chinamen to be the devyl majick peeple then they will be the devyl majik peepul! but ehyt will not be leedres in nuthin becuase they got the devyl eyes an maybe ecept the majik but it will not hep thm anyways!


    now git to yer bible an stop tawkin abot debvul majick! aint no need to be aksin abut the majic until jaysus is in yr hert and hee tells you to look at the majick!

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  56. Re:A race that is "backward" here isn't so elsewhe by Numen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Going to call bollocks on that mate.

    Walk into any hospital in the UK and count the number of doctors of Asian ethnicity.

    Walk into any large IT company in the city and count the number of Asian programmers.

    You're talking crap mate.

    Asian families aspire for their children to be professionals in the UK pretty much as they do anywhere else on the planet. And they succedd at it. The stereotype of most Indians and Pakistanis is of hard working, family orientated, law abiding and honest people.... you'll find it really hard to find a view of them being backward.

    I suggest you visited another country and simply carried your own view with you.

    For reference, I now live in Spain (used to work in central London), and the model of the Indian/Pakistani family is exactly the same here in Spain as it is in the UK. It's completely identifiable in every way.

  57. We should celebrate the success of others by GlenRaphael · · Score: 2, Insightful
    China is still very much more a copier of technology than an innovator. Once they become successful innovators, then we have to worry.

    No, then we have to celebrate, because we'll reap the benefits of their innovation. They'll invent ways to make things and provide services better and cheaper than before, and the world will be a better place for it. What nonsense the original article is, whining about us losing a "science crown". The world economy is a collaboration, not a competition! The richer and cleverer people in other countries get, the better off we will be.

    --
    I play Nerd-Folk!
  58. Breeding? by RobinH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In no way do I support eugenics... I'm simply an observer. However, I have to note this:

    1) In the west we have a "natural" selection of people where less successful people tend to breed more and sooner (they have more kids earlier in life). If there is any genetic component to success, we are effectively breeding it out.

    2) In China, they have an artificial selection where parents can only have 1 child. Those that have 2 are fined for the second, so effectively people with money (sometimes equivalent to success) can breed more. Therefore, China is encouraging the breeding of more successful people.

    I admit this is a simplification of the matter. However, I think that several generations down the road, this will turn into an advantage for the Chinese nation.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  59. Actually, indians aren't the best counterarguement by sanermind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...at least not without further details. India has had an extensive caste system for a very long time, which has also discouraged interbreeding, especially with the brahmin elite class.

    One might argue that the differences in british vs. american immigrant indians might come from different ratios of caste immigration. I am completely unaware of any data on this, but it does question the strength of your environment over heredity arguement.

    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
  60. Mega Rant and Rage by theolein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to start this off by saying that this isn't the first article to stir up fears of an ascendant Asia vs. a descendant America. Slashdot is full of them. Just take a look at any single article noting a technical achievement anywhere, and I mean anywhere outside the US, be it Europe, China, Brazil or India.

    And what is the typical slashdotter's reaction? One of blatant chauvinism, racism and derogatory remarks about backward Chinese spacecraft supposedly copied from the Russians, supposedly socialist Europe supporting a dying dream of having the wrong vision of passenger aircraft future or not even knowing that Brazil has had a working ethanol based gasoline system for more than two decades.

    That is the typical reaction. If you ask me, the problem of the US is perhaps one of arrogance based on ignorance. Ignorance on what happens beyond the US' borders. I suppose it comes from 60 years of superpower status and genuine leadership in many areas. It's gone on for so long that people in the US possibly take it for granted.

    It's also not the first economic scare the US has had. The Japanese frightened many in the 70's and 80's. And now the outsourcing of jobs to China and India is frightening many more.

    So where is the problem? Is it education as so many slashdotters like to believe? Is it the US media that is almost exclusively US centric to the extent that your average slashdotter knows neither the difference between Sweden and Switzerland or between Austria and Australia, and has vague and unsettling notions about the EU being socialist or even communist, let alone about place that have cultures even more remotely removed from the US such as China and India?

    I think it's probably a bit of all of that, but that the real problem is that the US population is simply not interested in the rest of the world. It's US consumers that drive the US media. It's US parents that drive the education system. It's the US population that votes in a President who is only semi-literate. It's the US population that votes to supplant science with dogmatic religion and yet rail against another equally dogmatic religion, that being ironically, one of the few foreign affairs that genuinely, even if only out of fear, interests the average US person.

    Taking an active interest in our world is step one to rejuvinating the US. IMO.

  61. Conservative!=fundy nut case by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Funny
    Do you puritans ever stop and take stock of how many "hard" scientists and engineers are among your rank? You know, the people that design and build shit instead of just talking about it? It's no wonder why we are losing this race. Too many of you are working to discover a scientific theory where none exists and not thinking about more practical things.

    Not that science matters to you, the rapture is coming anyhow.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  62. I call BS. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that the environment in the US is becoming hostile to science.

    I'm with you there - though "becoming" implies something recent and this trend has been going on for decades. (Trust me. I lived through it.)

    The religious extremists, greatly enheartened by a Fundementalist President's second term, are pursuing an agenda of undermining public education to replace science with nonsense like Intelligent Design and "teach the controversy."

    But here I call BS.

    The downfall of the US educational system predates both Bushes and has nothing to to with religious fundamentalism - unless you chose to label the "progressive" movement fundamentalist.

    It it the result of a package of new-age ideologies that have formed into a meme strong enough to infect and unify nearly half the politically-active population of the US - including the entire administrative infrastructure of public school primary and secondary education (along with the professoriate of most of the institutions of "higher" learning, especially in the "liberal arts" part of the curriculum).

    Some of the components:

    - Look-say reading instruction - turning out functional illiterates.

    - "New math", "Rain-forest Math", and other defective math and science teaching practices, turning out functional ilnumerates. (Note that the latter, while neglecting math skills, spends its time on story problems that amount to a political indoctrination course.)

    - Bilingual education and "ebonics" - indellibly marking children as underclass via an accent and sabotaging their chance for higher education and employment above the burger-flipping level (at least in the legal economy).

    - Self-esteem and "results-based" educational practices replacing grading on performance - removing incentive (actually producing a DISincentive) to learn.

    - "Sensitivity" and "diversity" training misused to define gang activity as "black" and "latino" culture - and to require teachers ignore disruptive behavior by young gangsters as they block other kids from what little learning they could otherwise achieve in the dysfunctional institution.

    - "Non-violent conflict resolution" that amounts to permitting the bullies to hit first to their heart's content, while drastically punishing anyone who attempts to defend by blocking a blow or hitting back.

    - Revisionist history: Ad-Hominem flames of the founders as "Dead White Men" (whose anti-authoritarian principles and teachings can thus be dismissed), characterization of the constitution as "a living document" that can be stretched to allow anything rather than a limit on government, treating historical facts as matters of opinion, utterly failing to cover most of the most important events of the last several centuries, and a list of other misdeeds too long to go into here.

    - Teacher retention, promotion, and pay scales based on seniority and tenure (in ELEMENTARY schools!) while totally blocking any consideration of qualification or performance.

    - School-of-education curricula that consist entirely of political indoctrination and utterly ignore science, math, biology, and any sience except so-called "social science" (which has less to do with science than "creation science" and "Christian Science".)

    And a host of other misdeeds, again too long to post here.

    All having the effect of dumbing down the victims of the education system and turning them into a mass of easy-to-control (though not as productive as they might have been) sheep. And virtually all coming out of the ideology of the left.

    Yes, there are some religious sects to the right of Joe Stalin who take issue with Darwin and make noise about it at school board meetings - especially when books are being selected. They get all the press - because the press itself is more than happy to turn its spotlight on its own opposition. This lets it blame its own side's destruction of science education on the other side. They've

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  63. Of course China is advancing ahead in science. by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Their government represses religion instead of letting religion run everything thinly veiled by the supposed 'separation of church and state'.

    Their government doesnt force the fables of creationism on kids during SCIENCE classes.

    Their government doesnt tell their own scientists to go back and try again when evidence is found supporting the idea of global warming.

    Their government doesnt force kids in some schools to recite the lord's prayer regardless of what religion (or lack thereof) they come from.

    Their government invades / annexes other countries because of historical ties, to repress sepratism of semi-autonomous regions ... not becuase 'they tried to kill my daddy!'

    Sure, there's a problem here and there with how China does things too, but there's no wonder why they are poised to take over.

    Their government owns SO MUCH american debt, they just need to threaten to dump a little of it to send the US dollar plummetting. hmmm wonder why they just de-linked the value of their money from the US dollar peg?

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  64. Size doesn't matter by stormlead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The size of China's population is irrelevant. Statistically speaking, yes, there may be more bright people born, but political factors take a much more prominent role. Take 16th century Venice, for example. With 200,000 citizens, it had a technological advantage and military parity with the Ottoman Empire, which had 20 million residents and thousands of times more landmass. The reasons? The tradition of free & rational inquiry, some free market mechanisms, and substantially more individual liberty. The point is, firstly that population size doesnt matter, and secondly, that, as long as the US encourages free thought more than China, it will always come out on top. It is no coincidence that revolutionary R&D (microprocessors, telephones, nuclear power) have come from the West, while evolutionary R&D (the latest in motherboard designs) comes from the East.

  65. my own observations by BlightThePower · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I teach in an engineering department in a fairly good european university.
    We had a meeting recently where the senior members of the department discussed project work and instructions to students. Their concern was that a pattern was emerging along these lines...

    Domestic students would or would not do what they were told by the deadline. They may or may not introduce some ideas of their own in doing this.

    European students would tend to deliver but had a tendency to deliver what they wanted deliver rather than what was discussed, this would vary a bit as to whether it was a good thing (innovative, neat ideas, rejecting what on balance became bad advice) or a bad thing (willfully ignoring good advice) depending.

    Japanese students tend never to say no, but would sometimes reappear at an advanced point in the project and confess they were stuck. Sometimes this would be a bit too late to do much about it. They'd normally get by though, just on the basis that up until that point they'd have had a damn good go at attacking the problem and there was often on close examination some stuff there that could be re-worked or otherwise given prominence to attract the credit it deserved.

    Chinese students, basically, would never so no and always deliver exactly what was requested, even if they staggered in looking like death warmed up.

    The bulk of the meeting was discussing how we could get our overseas students to loosen up a little and be more proactive. Its a fine balance obviously recognising the needs of individuals but not being discriminatory. But as one Prof quipped, we could probably kill a Chinese student by giving them an insoluable problem to work on whereas a domestic student would probably turn up and call us names (rightly). Be careful with the off-hand suggestions was the message, be clear about what the goals are and what are side issues. This should help all the above in different ways.

    Does this translate into anything nationally? Not sure, but it might be relevant if it says something universal about mentality. Chinese engineers certainly have the work ethic, put it that way.

    --
    Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
  66. Ouch, crap! by theolein · · Score: 3, Funny

    Much of the EU really is socialist with Germany coming to mind in particular, featuring strong central government planning of the economy and extensive social safety nets, workers' unions with real power truly representing their membership, and so on.

    Uhm, what central planning of the economy???????. Your assumption is more or less what I meant, I think. There is no centrally planned economy in the EU. In fact it's one of the rules of the EU to have free markets. If you're talking about the agricultural subsidies, then I would point out The US' farm subsidies in response. It has nothing to do with centrally planned economies.

    Shit, and there I hoped to make a point.

  67. Re:observations by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always liked the way that conversation goes at parties. If there's a follow-up question, it's always "What kind?" and occasionally incredulous. One learns to say "algebra" and change the subject.

    I've had more than one conversation run along lines like this:

    Person: So what do you do?
    Me: I'm a mathematician.
    Person: Oh, you're a teacher. What level do you teach?
    Me: No, I don't teach at all -
    Person: But I thought you said you did math?
    Me: Yeah, I do. I'm a research mathematician for a software company.
    Person: How do you research math?

    At which point it's time to grab the conversation by the scruff of the neck and quickly steer it in another direction because anything more isn't going to be productive.

    The exposure to abstract mathematics doesn't reach significance--much less unification--with a BS in math ed.

    I agree, and this is an issue. We spend a lot of time teaching people how to do math problems, without actually teaching them any mathematics. In a way it's akin to teaching people about creative writing by nothing but drilling them for years in spelling and formal grammar - yes it's important if you want to be able to do the subject properly, but it fails to really impart the essence of the subject.

    That horrible question, when will I ever use this?, becomes a sort of grim reality.

    That's an interesting problem, and the answer really is "all the time". We really ought to be teaching philosophy, including some formal logic, and stretching our math ciriculum sideways to meet it. One of the greatest skills that mathematics can impart, even at a very early level (late elementary school) if taught appropriately, is how to think about, deal with, and analyse abstract concepts. It's exercising the mental muscles for logical analysis and critical thinking. If we actually taught mathematics and philosophy from an early age I think we'd be much better off.

    I don't think bad teachers are to blame. Boring, maybe, but not resentful.

    I think they are, in that they have an attitude that math is both hard, and not of much real practical importance. Whether or not they tell kids that explicitly, it is very much an attitude that kids pick up and learn to imitate.

    Jedidiah.