Slashdot Mirror
National Academies on U.S. Science
theodp writes to tell us that the National Academies, the nation's 'leading science advisory group', is warning of the continued loss of America's competitive edge with regards to science in the global community. In a press release they call for the immediate increase of teachers and advanced research and development, citing that 'in 2001 U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development.' The Committee includes, among others, Intel's Craig 'Don't Call Us Benedict Arnold CEOs' Barrett.
Slashdot is posting it again, something they almost never do.
What we really need are some scientists that can figure out a way to prevent posting dupes.
If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
The Americans have "faith based" science. What could go wrong?
dupe do dupe do dupe do do dupe
Forget american scientists. Other countries will pay gold for our lawyers. Nowhere in the World can you find lawyers with so much hands-on experience on multi-million dollars patent litigation.
Exactly half of that page is dedicated to the article.
There is a nice delimiter in the middle.
The other half is dedicated to... trash
In American society, being good at math or science is generally regarded as geeky or nerdy and is roundly disparraged. Small wonder American kids want nothing to do with it. Look at the popular TV shows - many are about lawyers, doctors, and law enforcement types. If there is a technically saavy person, they are made fun of and treated as quaint. Until this changes we can throw all the money we want at the problem, but it won't change much. Back in the 60's it was cool to be into science - largely thanks to the space race (and to a lesser degree the cold war). There was even a TV personality (Fred MacMurray in My Three Sons) who played an aeronautical engineer, and he was actually portrayed in a positive light! That's impossible to imagine in today's culture. Maybe if we had something akin to the space program, say a race to energy indepenence, we could once again make it cool to pursue a career in science, math, physics or engineering.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
It's time for the US to choose between a reliance on religious fanaticism or science. If the focus remains on religious fanaticism, then the education of the nation's youth will suffer far more than it already had. But thankfully it's not too late to switch gears, and again put a focus on science and math (even if it means some contradiction with popular religious beliefs).
Having recently travelled to several US states, I don't think that enough of the population would be willing to make such a necessary change. While there are many very intelligent and very astute Americans, they are unfortunately in the minority. The majority seem to be Bible-toting, science-hating individuals.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be for America's scientific elite to leave America to those who are either religious fanatics or have a strong dislike for academia. There are always Western nations like England, Canada, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, Australia and many others who would gladly accept such talent. The scientists will be better off, and eventually those who rejected higher education will fall into economic obscurity.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Talk about hypocrisy. But then again, this is slashdot.
I remember hearing this business about our losing our scientific edge even as Apollo was landing astronauts on the moon. In itself, I really don't worry about it much. This has been a nation mostly of crackpots and bumpkins right from day one.
Our advantage never came from having the brightest of populations, it came from having an economic and legal system that placed few barriers in the paths of the talented, which also made this country an attractive place for talented foreigners to migrate to as well (think Andy Grove, Albert Einstein or Andrew Carnegie).
I'm a lot more worried about losing the advantages our legal and economic system afforded us than I am about some egalitarian vision of providing advanced education to the Great Unwashed.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Let me get this staight, they're asking the guy who 'believes' that intelligent design should be given time in schools to improve our science curriculum?
Obviously, this committee has a deathwish.
Perhaps such people should leave the American "culture", especially if they feel they are unwanted. The academic scene in Europe is flourishing, and such talent would be wanted and treated well.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
> Perhaps the best thing to do would be for America's scientific elite to leave America to those who are either religious fanatics or have a strong dislike for academia.
Tempting, but I think I'll stay here and try to keep the world's largest nuclear arsenal from falling into the hands of ignorant savages ruled by theocrats.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You just inspired my first/probably last ever journal entry: http://slashdot.org/~RiotXIX/journal/
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
But why is George Bush causing all these Slashdot dupes?
Last time I looked the US was the 1st on the list of scientific papers published by countries with more than 60% of the papers. The second position (United Kingdom IIRC) was really far from US in number of papers. It would be nice if not just one big expoend had the control of most scientific efforts, but many nations sharing this "privileged position".
I indeed believe US industry should invest more in research (as all other nations should do, always, no matter what). But it's worthy noting that other nations are growing and maturing too, US can't avoid that. Besides that, this is not a fight. The benefits achieved from researches aims all humanity (at least it should be that way), so it isn't important who is at the top of the list, but it is important to support studies and researches, both in academia and in industry.
While there are disturbing trends (e.g., low math and science scores, more interest in education in developing nations, eventual decline of U.S. economy) I think that there is still a lot to be optimistic about.
:-). Really, it is relationships that matter in life, not material crap.
For one thing, the standard of living is so high in the U.S., that a decline of luxuries is liveable -really what do you need but good friends, family food, and shelter - give me a break on the Polyana B.S. because I just got back from a good friend's wedding (where I was asked to play my didgeridoo
I still believe that the U.S. (along with a lot of other countries) still has a surfeit of talented creative people. Right now, innovative web applications is what is catching my interests - but there is a lot of great things happening in field of IT.
Sure the trends are a little disturbing, but people who love doing what they do will mostly still have good lives, even if things in the U.S. generally decline.
From the press release: "For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India."
All we have to do is convince the rednecks that NASCAR and religion are "for libburbuls" (as Rush Limbaugh pronounces it) and they'll embrace science and education. It's quite simple if you think about it.
Dropouts are not reading the bible. They are playing X-box, vandalizing their neighborhood, and buying gangster rap CDs marketed to suburban kids.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Wow, you've travelled to several US states. Depending on which states those are, and where you went during those trips, i'd have to say you just had interactions with the loudest people. Most of the people I come into contact with here in America might have religious beliefs, but few are "fanatics". The only reason to believe we are fanatics is because those fanatics that do exist simply care more about teaching their beliefs that those that aren't (because those that aren't are you know, open to other ideas).
As me what they are confident at: Gameboys, iPODs and PS2s. Sad indeed.
We have a theory though:
At our school, we think that American students are growing up with too many distractions and marketing to kids by companies wishing to expand profits is not helping our efforts at all.
The other thing is hip-hop. You have these fellows bragging about how they dropped out of school, but now own limos.
Then you have the "race to the bottom" with low paying jobs (read Wal-Mart), to the extent that to be in the middle class now, as a family, there MUST be at least 2 income earners. Studies show that it was not like that in the fifties.
Or is extended litigation actually benefecial for our economy? I mean.. Money goes into research for goods and services.. Or, corporate money (money indirectly and directly from workers and investers) can go into the hands of rich law firms (to the tune of 30% each transaction)..
So.. is it beneficial for our economy to increase the gap between the rich and the middle class?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Deja Dupe. Just a couple days ago.
Feel free to copy/paste those highly rated comments into this thread...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
While it is true, gaining gold on each turn helps us afford our mechanized infantry, we would be better served moving happiness down to 10%, and increasing science to 60%. We would still gain the gold we need, and with just 48 turns left, and those damned Aztecs with the higher average scores, our only hope is too win the space race...
It's time for the US to choose between a reliance on religious fanaticism or science.
How would I recognize one of these fanatics? Would they
- Obsessively post the same message over and over again?
- Try to make every topic of discussion, no matter how unconnected, a forum for their views?
- Consistently demonize other points of view?
- Counter well-meaning factual arguments with name-calling?
- Use guilt by association to try to discredit their unbelievers?
- Use fear as a motivator?
I sure am worried about all the fanaticism. I hope I can recognize it when I see it.
So if an american student wanted to go get a cutting edge graduate education in biotech field, what countries would he want to look at first? Does it hurt if he only speaks english?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
(Preface - I'm doing a PhD in computer engineering. Both my parents are teachers [high school - one teaches languge, the other biology], and it looks like I'll be teaching an undergraduate computer-engineering course within the next year).
The BIG problem is that the quality of math and science teaching has gone to hell in a hand-basket. I've taken dozens and dozens of science, engineering, and math courses, and *maybe* 8-10 of them had good teachers (only two of them below the university level). The teachers are failing to adaquentely instruct the students.
Over the last 3-4 years my entire department has seen a rather dramatic drop in the competency of the students at the higher levels. The students aren't getting dumber, they are just less capable - they don't the material as well as they should, and you can't teach them everything in a 15 week course. I put almost all of the blame on the teachers they had as freshmen and in high school (and before that, even - I remember seeing in a National Science Teacher Assocation flyer that most studies show the big "black hole" in science education occurs around the 5th-8th grade)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
...if our corporations were ran by people with science and engineering backgrounds who cared about long-term research and development rather than ran by MBAs with BAs in Medieval History and Philosophy who can't differentiate a simple function or write a line of code, and who care more about short-term profits and $$$, then perhaps we'll see some more scientific and engineering progress in this country. Witness the downfall of Bell Labs, for example. Bell Labs was very innovative and many of its research projects led to things that we take for granted today (the very operating system that I'm typing this message on now, is FreeBSD, which is a direct descendant of Bell Labs' Unix [if you ignore the fact that the code was completely rewritten]). Then, some person who knows nothing about science and engineering took control and cut its funding to its knees. Now Bell Labs is very small, and that same dummy went on to destroy HP in a similar fashion....
The education system isn't looking that great, either. Our secondary schools are also failing to teach the basic science and mathematics needed to produce students capable of succeeding in an science or engineering field. College students looking at future career prospects might end up switching to law or business, because the future looks brighter for them. After all, we're outsourcing a great deal of the engineering jobs.
This country is fast on its way of becoming a country full of rich lawyers and managers, and poor McDonalds employees and janitors. But who will be exploring science and developing new technologies? The Indians and Chinese, of course. Their corporate culture seems to care much more about the future, and besides, many of our corporations are using them to do our non-law/managerial work.
If we want to turn back the tide, the corporate culture needs to change, and we need more CEOs who have science and engineering backgrounds who care about science and engineering. The school system in this country also needs to be radically improved.
Actually, they're fairly easy to observe. They're the sort of people who openly claim that intelligent design is even worth considering in science classes. They even go so far as to have tested scientific theories, such as evolution, removed from science curricula.
It's necessary to question all scientific theories. That's what science is all about. But it's fanaticism when you start talking about "intelligent design" and other crap like that. Why is that? Because you're throwing out the scientific method in favour of interpretation of myth. Science cannot be based on a fanatical belief of myth.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
We've heard calls for better science education for years but it must be getting horrible for them to issue a second warning with a couple days of each other!
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I can't believe that the CEO of Intel is worried about the loss of US scientific positioning. He does everything possible to drive people OUT of the technical and engineering professions.
This is the guy who's company insists that you have college degrees and take a drug test before they will even consider you for a temp position working in any technicial position in his company.
Did I say temp? Goodness me, I meant perma-temp. Work for years as a 'contract' employee with no health insurance, job security, advancement, or benefits.
Intel sucks. Check out the FACEIntel website for more information. I spent a week at Intel ten years ago. I sure hope that I never have to go back there. Unless you are one of the top twenty people in the world at what you do, Intel is a total dead-end company. And if you are one of the top twenty people in the world in your speciality, why the hell would you want to work at Intel? It's a 'sixth sense' company; already dead but doesn't know it.
Walked into a college bookstore today. CDN$114 was the going rate for a new compsci textbook. That's $500/semester on books alone. Why? It's a fucking racket, that's why. Sure, nobody takes responsability for higher tuition costs, only gloating about the pittance reductions when they come. Managers don't want to pay for the skills, despite the obvious advantages. High school graduates opt out of uni due to high cost, low motivation to have their work underapreciated and other reasons, and don't continue to learn of learning... if there's hope, it's that the improved communication channels can be used to facilitate the majority of learning done by oneself and encourages the learning of self teaching, but (currently) does little for lab work, inter-personal or vocation training... and no piece of paper at the end of it all. So, in lieu of anyone who seems to care about distributed education, let us bring it about ourselves. Work together to improve the state of distributed learning. Surely a trust based distributed certification system can't be beyond reach.
It's interesting you've brought up "intelligent design" when the topic really isn't about that at all and it's not mentioned in any of the linked articles.
At the same time, during and after WWII, many great minds were coming to the relatively freedom of the US. It is often say the Allies won WWII because we had the smarter Germans. This continued to the end of the the 20th century, when changes in the US and foreign rules, the increasing cost of a US education, and the availability of other options, reduced the influx of foreign talent.
Even with all this, I think there are three critical factors that makes the US less competitive, beyond the general presence of anti-intellectualism and the president that is proud that he cannot read complex prose. The first is that funding priorities are focused more on war and less on education, therefore most Universities have less money with which to educate. Second, though I think the WWII vets communicated the wonder of the world to their kids, the grandkids do not seem to understand. I know too many kids of successful people decline to the bum slacker status, never creating anything more complex than a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Third, we are not communicated the wonder of the world to average kids. They grow up believing that a worker and consumer is all they can be. That is what most will be, but some can be more, and it is these resources that we are wasting. And as the US returns to protectionism, there will be less chance for a kid to be exposed to the wonder of the world. Worse, i see television shows where contestants say the most wonderful thing they have done in their life is to hold their breaths for a couple minutes, or stay still while bugs crawl on. I often did the later when I was a kid, and I never thought is was so great. What is great is launching a satellite, or helping a factory stay in the US, or helping a company stay afloat so those jobs are saved, and more are created. or a new school of art, or a new way of communicating information. And everyone will say a normal person cannot do these things, but normal people do all things everyday. All anyone thinks can be done is new and more complex ways of stealing money or cheating on taxes so our boys do not have the equipment they need, the medical care, or the education facilities when they return.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Why is the top stripe of the flag white, when it should be red?
It's strange that kids in high school must take 4 years of English, 3 years of math and only 2 years of science. I always though math and science where more important then reading Shakespeare; but the MAN doesn't seem to think so.
The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
This is not my experience. In terms of religious education and americans.
The school system I went to was religious based (you got to choose what religion - but "none" was not an option.) We learnt about creationism - but in religion class. In science class we learnt evolution. Creationism was NEVER taught as science. And I suspect most people who believe in creationism, do in that sense - as religion, not as a science. In my opinion science and religion rarely attempt to answer the same questions so, in that theory the conflict should be minimal.
As for Americans - most of the ones I have met were kind, friendly and intelligent. That is why their politicians confuse me so much.
ZKTime flies like an arrow Fruit flies like a banana
and China then I'll get back to you. In the mean time you can trade pieces of paper.
Sure it is. Proponents of faith-based science are one of the main reasons why American education is starting to fall behind the rest of the Western world, especially those nations that are not as focused on appeasing to religious extremists.
It's not the only factor, but it is one of the big ones. The articles discuss the effect of litigation, but neglect to cover the effects of religious fanaticism. You can't understand the problem unless you consider the other factors leading to the downfall of the American education system.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
That work will go on with us or without us. Baring some special need for a war economy a-la WW2 there is no particular reason why we have to be good at science or invest much effort in science education. There are simply too many obstacles and competing interests for us to be able to afford everything and clearlt in the marketplace of ideas, science has lost out to some extent. People who want to pursue it though are free in this interconnected world, to go do that somewhere else. If few of our young people acquire the basic skills to do that work in university or beyond then that's simply something that they wont do.
Those tech CEOs with no soul can't outsource you then. It will take at least 10 years for teachers in public schools to get outsourced and you are probably safe for the foreseeable future in grades K-6. Jon Recovering tech slave
I don't see how you can not think Intelligent Design is ontopic. The topic is science in the United States, it seems quite obvious that issues like "do we teach kids actual science in science class, or religion?" would be pretty high on the list of ontopic subjects. If our students are kept in the dark about biology, how can we expect to compete in biotech?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You are coorect my friend. "several US states?" Keep in mind Germany would fit in Texas twice, area wise. America is a big place with diverse ideas- and besides, anywhere you visit you are likely to come away with an impression of fanaticism. Why? Fanatics, by their nature, are the loudest and most visible.
When I have traveled to Europe, I could easily have come away with an impression that Europeans were crazy fanatics- Why? Because upon hearing that i was an American, the 2 fanatics out of a crowd of hundreds immediately desended upon me. It would be easy to remember only the fanatics, and forget the many other normal people I met. Also, take France for example. While in Paris, I got a lot of shit. Out in the countryside, people were extremly kind to me. (Many in Paris were also nice to me- But it is hard to tell in touristy places, because locals, whether in Paris or Branson MO. tend to dislike tourists, while of course liking their money...)
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
We all really know the answer to the problem.
Allowing software patents is fraudlent and very discourging to genuine research.
Amoung other discourging acts in politics and military and business.
And so long as foolish act such as this continue and are allowed, the US is simply just getting what it diserves and apparently wanted by the psuedo leaders.
"Having recently travelled to several US states, I don't think that enough of the population would be willing to make such a necessary change. While there are many very intelligent and very astute Americans, they are unfortunately in the minority. The majority seem to be Bible-toting, science-hating individuals."
Making generalizations based on anecdotal evidence is pretty unscientific. In fact, it's a statistically invalid way of doing things. Statistics is a science. You, sir, have just made a claim no more scientific than intelligent design.
I'm one of these religious fanatics you speak of, yet, oddly enough, I have a degree in CS and Economics from a prestigious institution here in the US. Religion hardly affects how I perform in these fields, or how I conduct my research (I work for a contractor at a very prestigious research agency, in fact). There's nothing contradictory between "science" and "religion". In fact, science is often quite helpful for explaining unclear things about religion. But, then again, I never have religion enter into my work anyways, because believing in G-d or not has nothing to do with designing a system architecture, or running a statistical regression. In fact, it has nothing to do with any vast number of scientific endeavors, to which the Bible/Koran/WhateverBookYouLike makes no mention of. There is nothing irreligious about e=mc^2.
I will be as honest as I can when I say this: I hate assholes like you who use their pro-science rhetoric as a thin mask to their anti-religion beliefs. I even more hate it when you characterize all religion as evangelical Christianity.
"Those religious people are out to get us! STOP THEM!" "Religion is the bane of science! Destroy religion!" Most people playing this line of thought have generally disdainful attitudes towards religion to begin with, from what I've seen. They claim they're "tolerant", yet their very words make a lie of such statements. What is tolerance without respect? That you don't shoot me for practicing my religion? How very kind of you!
Maybe Christianity is anti-science. I don't think so, but then again, I'm not a Christian. But generalizing that all religion is anti-science is wrong, unfair, and untrue.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
They want instant returns on quarterly basis as a measure of success. Accoutants from investment firms and not MBA's make decisions on growth of a company.
Also what another poster mentioned is its more profitable to outsource and devalue American workers since they are no longer as efficient due to their high salaries, compared to third world countries.
http://saveie6.com/
You're kidding right? You think the US is run by religious fanatics? You're comparing the US to the Taliban? Where the government uses force to convert its subjects into practicing a certain religion? Apparently you're falling prey to buzz words in the media. The religious right, the right wing christian conservatives, revamping the country to puritanical colonialism all while doing mission statements and working on innovating their new and improved synergies. There is a jumble of all faiths running the US, many of the divisions of christianity, judaism, atheism, islam, etc. There is no state sponsored church, religion, or belief system that citizens are forced to join. It is ridiculous to think that the multitude in the US would follow a state designed religion in the first place. Look at the backlash over putting stickers on biology textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory, common sense is dominating ridiculous ideas. It isn't religious fanaticism running this country. It's apathy. Apathy towards hard work in school. We'd rather watch mind numbing reality tv than pick up a book or try to learn something new. Kids get passed to the next grade no matter if they work hard or not because we wouldn't want to hurt the little darling's self esteem, so the kids who would otherwise make an effort end up slacking off because they're guaranteed to pass anyway so why bother working hard? Why go out of your way to do well if you can just get by. There are plenty of would-be scientists out there in gradeschool that have no motivation because teachers don't reward diligence and effort, instead they spend more time trying to enforce discipline to a bunch of kids who don't care. What can a teacher do if the parents don't care in the first place? We constantly demonize teachers who discipline their students. How many times have you seen a parent go and complain that their kid was given detention or a bad grade when the kid deserved it? The biggest farce is the no child left behind act. Some kids need to be left behind. School isn't for everyone. Teach some kids a trade or useful everyday skills instead of forcing them to memorize shakespeare or other equally useless facts to them. Teach them how to work a cash register or fix a car. Don't waste their or the teacher's time by forcing the teacher to remediate the uninterested ones. Cater schools to kids who want to learn. All we owe people in this country is the chance to succeed, we don't have to make them do it if they don't want to. Let them fail if they don't want to put in effort, that way the teachers can focus on the students who want to learn, and ultimately schools will be better. Yeah I ranted, I'm just sick of seeing kids who have potential be held back because of other people.
The issue here is not why there are so few people going into scientific and technological fields in comparison to other countries, many can point at the causes, but what are US businesses and industry and government doing to improve the future of science and technology in the US?
It seems to me that the X-Prize and DARPA Grand Challenge and other such contests inspire children to innovate and learn, to participate in science and technology, to enter those fields of study and commerce. We need more of the same, on smaller, local levels.
Why don't we encourage industry associations to offer prizes for innovation? For an example: the waste management industry bands together to offer three prizes each year for innovations that affect waste management: one for under 16 year olds, one for over 16 but in school, and one for independants (not associated with any school) such that the prize would bring money to the individual school as well as the contest winner, and in the case of independents, the prize would be awarded to the individual and a school of their choosing (even in the form of tuition and costs for that student if the winner desires it)
This would put money in the hands of those capable of innovation and technology advancements. It would reward those that learn, and that is what it should be about. Industry then needs to move on to reward those that choose that career... The first step is to change patent law, and put more stress on innovation and competativeness than on protecting current business models.
When the government and business machines are willing to promote and support innovation, then innovation will happen. Lucky Lindy didn't fly across the ocean to secure a patent on ticketing software, he did it to win acclaim and secure his place in industry. When others can be rewarded in like manner, they will do so... it is up to us to ensure that government and industry reward people like Lindburgh and the Wright brothers (among others). Simply trying to set in motion a machine that turns out engineers is just not going to work.
Well, of course, I might be wrong... its just 2 cents spent
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
nations like England
Don't do that. It's fucking ignorant, calling the UK "England". As a Scot, I find it irritating in the extreme. It's like calling the US "North Dakota".
This is the most ridiculous opportunism I've seen in a long time. "Religous Fanaticism" hasn't had any effect on our students' ability to do math or understand science.
There are alot of reasons our children aren't doing as well as they can, but its a fucking stretch (to put it mildly) to blame it on religion.
Perhaps we can blame our educational problems on people using our educational problems as figer-pointing material. Or maybe it really IS nothing more complicated than the fact that parents are too busy to keep on their kids. Whatever, but c'mon... it has NOTHING to do with religion.
Insightful?! Damnit, I'm not even religous and crap like this makes my head spin.
For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India.
Well, the cost of living is a lot lower in these countries. This doesn't tell us anything about the state of American science.
Last year chemical companies shuttered 70 facilities in the United States and have tagged 40 more for closure. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.
That's because we're outsourcing the production. It's cheaper. Most of the research and development is still done here.
U.S. 12th-graders recently performed below the international average for 21 countries on a test of general knowledge in mathematics and science.
Been hearing how bad American students are at math and science for the past 20 years. I wonder why a disproportionate number of science Nobel Prizes still go to Americans?
In 1999 only 41 percent of U.S. eighth-graders had a math teacher who had majored in mathematics.
Maybe the other 59 percent had teachers who majored in Physics or CS. Doesn't mean they're not qualified to teach high school math.
In 2001 U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development.
Now that's cause for concern. Too many lawyers and not enough engineers will be our downfall.
What the article doesn't point out is that the US spends more on science and technology than most of the rest of the world combined and still has great institutions like MIT, Cal Tech, Standford, DARPA, NASA, etc. that are unparallelled anywhere else in the world.
It's not even your general culture. It's your public education system, which sucks every imaginable mode of ass. It is a union-captured mediocrity-ruled Prussian-designed system absolutely intended to hammer the individual flat to the collective.
If you have a child in the USA, home-school them. Go hungry, rather than send them to government school.
" it came from having an economic and legal system that placed few barriers in the paths of the talented"
Judging from the fact that we're now spending more on legal -- in part due to intellectual property insanity and increased wrangling over who "owns" what ideas -- it's just possible the legal system is becoming part of the problem.
But hey, if potential personal profit means arguing over what's already been invented a la SCO instead of actually getting out and inventing things, why should we get in the way?
Tweet, tweet.
Arrgh- Intelligent design has a place, in my opinion, as a mention. In my high school, we studied hard science and evolution, but the teacher said "some people believe such and such" and spoke for 5 minutes about The Blind Watchmaker. Then it was right back to science. Whatever your opinion of intelligent design or creationism, it deserves a mention because so many people believe it- Why? Because even if you are mentioning ID or creationism just to disprove it, kids need to learn about what others think. Sort of like, in a democracy class, you would teach a bit about other forms of government, even if only to strengthen the case for democracy. Teaching a little about ID, in my opinion, will teach kids to find their own answers, teach them how people thought for thousands of years before science. Sort of like, "here in this automotive engineering class, I am going to mention that there is a large segement of the population who believes in human pawered rickshaws, you can read more about that on your own time, now on to our fuel injection unit...." Does that make any sense, or should I not post on Saturday night after having a few drinks?
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
First step: Paint a picture through the television that being a science "nerd" or a math "geek" as the correct persona for the American pop-culture. Second step: Fire all the instructors in all the institutions of high learning that would rather do research than teach the next generation. Teaching first, research last! Third step: Give the tools that the children need in order to understand the sciences and mathematics. In other words, let the kids dig the holes in the school yard and identify the different layers of dirt. Thus, allowing for the kids to get their hands dirty with the field work. Finally: Get rid of all of the course work that does not pertain to the sciences. World Lit, History, and various other courses do not need to be on the curriculum for the sciences. The sciences are like a foreign language; in order to master the language you have to submerge yourself in it with no deviations. Thats it my input to the dilemma.
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
Judging from the fact that we're now spending more on legal -- in part due to intellectual property insanity and increased wrangling over who "owns" what ideas -- it's just possible the legal system is becoming part of the problem.
I understand that it's morphing into something that's becoming part of the problem. That's exactly why I said I was worried about it. This country is becoming a place that's no longer an attractive destination for the talented and entrepreneurial. If you've noticed, our laws and economic system have changed quite a bit over the last several decades.
As I said originally, it was never our brilliant population (*smirk*) that accounted for our success.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
You couldn't be more deluded. See, those "nerds" are actually the wealthy, and those "cool" kids who now work in overall type jobs are the poor. Trust me, plenty of those people are MUCH smarter than you can imagine, it's socioeconomics stupid! I had to sell drugs to finally afford entry into university, and I'm doing much better than the sheltered tots that surround me, although I'm also a couple years older. Get off your high horse, you think they hated you because you were smart? It was because you were born into a fortunate environment and act superior out of an ignornant premise.
- Obsessively post the same message over and over again?
- Try to make every topic of discussion, no matter how unconnected, a forum for their views?
- Consistently demonize other points of view?
- Counter well-meaning factual arguments with name-calling?
- Use guilt by association to try to discredit their unbelievers?
- Use fear as a motivator?
That sums up the bush administration and their supporters nicely. Good job.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
The average person who doesn't have a serious interest in a subject looks for a degree in something that will get him a career. So... we graduate lots of MBAs and lawyers.
People who are truly interested in science and technology will find a way to get educated in it, and the ones with a sense of self-preservation will be learning Chinese, Indian, and EU languages.
Make the jobs available and the expanding demand for the appropriate classes will cause more faculty to be hired... problem solved.
But I don't really consider this a problem, since the people who are in a position to DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS aren't interested in putting their own bucks on the table. Just ours.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I have discovered Time Travel!
How else could I be reading a story posted days ago as if it were a new story?
**Spoilers**
Pointed Headed Academics Say it's Bush's Fault.
Bush supporters call them Pointy Headed academics.
Pointed Headed Academics sniff and tell each other how smart they are.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
make it easier to relocate and become a citizen of a foreign country and we just might.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Please be a scientist, don't be a lawyer. Please be treated and paid as you were the scum of the universe, your advice ignored, your warnings unheeded, your work shipped to some other country. Oh, and please get some friends to join in so that we can pay you ever less and treat you worse.
Do not become a lawyer, do not get paid good bucks, do not get a job in something that is not offshorable, do not have the power to threat anyone with litigation.
FFS. Any smart guy (ie, scientist) will avoid pursuing a science or technology oriented career, and leave that as a hobby.
Well, not to seem needlessly argumentative... but no, actually, I don't think tolerance has anything to do with respect. I don't have to respect a single thing about you or your religion in order to tolerate it. What I have to do in order to tolerate your religion is to not try to limit or control how or whether you practice your religion - so long as you do the same. Not shooting you for practicing your religion is exactly that - tolerance. But your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and your right to teach creationism (no matter how you try to disguise it) ends at my child's ears.
I'd also like to point out that as long as we're talking about assholes, the assholes I hate are the ones who lie about the fact that they are trying to force their religious beliefs upon me (and I'm not talking about you, sir). I hate the assholes who, e.g., pretend that their desire to have ID taught in schools is based on a desire to "present a balanced view." I hate the assholes who pretend that having the phrase, "Under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance is a way of preserving and honoring the fact that some of the Founding Fathers of our country nominally shared some belief systems with them (although I don't think there were any Southern Baptists who signed the Declaration of Indepence... hmm?) If they wanted to amend the POA to say, "...one nation, which was founded by people, some of whom were Christians..." I might buy it. But you and I both know that's not really what they want.
Religious tolerance needs to work both ways - people who have a religious preference need to respect the fact that others do not share that preference, and need to stop trying to force them. Again, I'm not suggesting that you are guilty of that particular transgression. You do have a peculiar idea of what tolerance means, though.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
(Below is a copy of a comment I made the last time this story was posted. If slashdot editors can dupe, I should be able to as well :)
Last year Reason had an interview with Neal Stephenson (author of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and other fine novels), where he was asked about the state of science in America. What he said resonated with me quite a bit:
The success of the U.S. has not come from one consistent cause, as far as I can make out. Instead the U.S. will find a way to succeed for a few decades based on one thing, then, when that peters out, move on to another. Sometimes there is trouble during the transitions. So, in the early-to-mid-19th century, it was all about expansion westward and a colossal growth in population. After the Civil War, it was about exploitation of the world's richest resource base: iron, steel, coal, the railways, and later oil.
For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It's no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you're living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering.
It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn't care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don't belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture.
If so, then you are not one of religious fanatics the poster was talking about.
Destroy religion!Funny, I reread his post a few times and did not see this.
But your response seems typical. If someone says science should not be replaced with religious dogma in schools or that it is not the job of the government to enforce a particular religious view, then it's "They are trying to destroy religion.
Maybe you were right, you just might be a fanatic.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Nicely put, and just subtle enough that it soared gracefully over the heads of those at which it was targeted.
There was a recent wide-spread report indicating prestige of various professions, and scientists were number one! Lack of respect is not what is driving kids away from science, it is lack of cash. As I have posted here numerous times, a smart person can make a lot more money in law, business, or medicine, all without having to stay in school until one is 30 (or older, depending on the number of post-docs you have to grind through).
Unless this changes, we aren't going to have lots of home-grown scientists. It is that simple.
I am a chemistry post-doc at a highly-regarded university, and have every reason to consider myself a highly intelligent person. I work my ass off (60h/week...a REAL 60h). I am nearing my 31st birthday.
I have never made more than $22,000 in a single year.
Do you see the problem?
And I won't even bother to elaborate on how slaving 60h+ each week in a virtually all-male environment inhibits one's social life.
Are you saying that the present and recent-past lack of "Intelligent Design" in school biology classes is to blame for our loss of scientific prestige?
That doesn't surprise me, but it should be a clue to all decent and sensible people that things have to change radically. Let's push for the kind of tort reform that will put 90% of the filthy blood-sucking pirates out of business.
The American legal system is a f**king disgrace. No, scratch that, it's a positive menace to the American way of life. We have turned into a nation of paranoid, selfish sissies, thanks to the pond scum of the trial bar. And the defense attorneys are no better; they don't want the gravy train to end either. I want to annihilate them. I want their children to starve and their wives to go barefoot. I want to cut their dirty greedy balls off with a rusty butter knife.
Most of all, I want to sweep away a thousand years of arcane gibberish and oppression of the common man, tear the legal system into itty bitty pieces, and rebuild it from the ground up according to principles of logic and common sense and brevity. The greedy vermin of the Bar have been a plague on humanity since the time of the Pharisees, and it has to stop NOW.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Thank you for bringing to our attention the issue of open source professionalism. Indeed, for some developers it is something that needs much work. Especially that particular KOffice developer who went around publically insulting a long time KDE and KOffice user. It saddens me that a single comment like that from such a developer can have such a negative impact on the image of such otherwise respectable projects.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
One thing about most of these studies concerning the quality of US education is that it is often influenced by general perceptions from Hollywood movies.
The reason the US has managed to achieve all the things it has in the worlds of science is because we generally leave smart people alone and give them a relatively free hand to pursue the answers they seek. This is not a race for education. This is not a race for money. This is a race for freedom to explore.
This is not about hacking code. It's not about secret laboratories where diabolical experiments are performed. It's not about eggheads who decide to get even with the bullies who beat them up. It's about freedom to pursue what we nerds have always wanted to explore. Hollywood doesn't get it. It's also not about homegrown smart people.
In some ways we're still ahead. In others we're doomed. I'm particularly dismayed by the religious right's policy influence with medical research. However, this country still has silicon valley. In fact, it not only has silicon valley, it has Research Triangle Park, the suburbs of DC, Los Alamos National Labs, and similar collaborative institutions near most major cities.
Most other countries would give anything to have these informal and pragmatic social institutions where results are rewarded and where failures are detected early and aren't pursued. But no. Those countries have entrusted their governments or large industry groups to guide them. Sometimes it bears fruit. But the solutions aren't usually radical. The truly revolutionary discoveries are often kept on the shelf for further research. Big organizations don't usually know better.
Now we can squeal and holler about the rotten quality of US educational standards. And it's true. The average education received in public institutions frankly isn't good for much. What the US does differently is that it rewards talent. And by so doing, it often attracts talent from overseas. Yes, we have our own homegrown talent too. But we also count at least as many first generation immigrants among their number.
Yes, we had Thomas Edison. But we also count Nicholai Tesla along with him. We had Richard Feynnman, but we also count Paul Dirac with him too. We had Robert Goddard, but we also had Werner Von Braun. The Sciences here in the US got a huge head start from these first generation immigrants.
The only thing we need to ask is whether we're still encouraging and rewarding good work. If we are, then we aren't losing ground.
Hollywood can can portray these scientists as silly, just as they were portrayed in so many B Movies from the 1950s. No, I wish the reputations were different, but Hollywood is really nothing more than a place for Art students to get even with all of us smug and supercillious engineers and scientists. Most of Hollywood is filled with pretty people, most of couldn't learn enough to be good at much of anything. Thankfully, looking good is nearly all there is to a good career in Hollywood. It's nice that they can get rich doing what they like. I wish it didn't have to be at the expense of the reputation of another pillar of society. But that's no different than it's ever been.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
a majority? I am completely baffled. Seriously. Having been raised in a completely backwoods part of the US, I can testify that the Bible-thumping fools you seem to think are the majority are in fact quite rare even in such places as my hometown, and almost non-existent in more suburban or urban areas.
These people have almost no effect on day-to-day science in the US, and the media blows their silly comments way out of proportion.
I have no idea why you think scientists would be better off overseas. In the states, we get paid more, have better facilities, more research money, and many of the best people from around the world to collaborate with. Btw, I am one of the rare American scientists working overseas. I am not doing so for the sake of science, but for the international experience. I could do better science at home.
"It's time for the US to choose between a reliance on religious fanaticism or science."
/. sometimes. Those heavily moderated up are in the majority of leftist opinion. Many times, they have great points. But the other half don't even have their facts straight even from a *scientific* or statistical basis. The lack of training and dispassionate analysis is just glaringly apparent. And yet this group indirectly or directly tends to describe themselves intellectual, geeks, or nerds. What a crock. A lot of observers from the general population sitting on these fence will observe and state how arrogant you are, stating you're smart but screwing up; religion may be wrong, but it's almost seen as an excuse, given the attacks on it are socially unacceptable from any camp.
Thank you for playing, as you've just allowed the opposition you wish to play against to define the game to your disadvantage. No wonder we're losing. Sheer incompetence.
NO. You stating or demanding that such a choice must be made is silly and, worse, incompetent; it's exactly the tactic Bush most recently but also the political left pulled on you, causing this ridiculous fracturing in the first place. It's such a SIMPLE tactic, and yet the political agree-ers and opposition just gloss over it.
You may not be for diversity, and diversity of opinion these days is frequently lauded but really just an excuse to undermine an opposing movement, but diversity (or maybe a better word choice would be balance although that's become a loaded term a la Fox News) is what will keep us falling (more) into a fascist state. What the fracturing that has occurred over the past 10 years has overshadowed understanding the opposition's argument; most arguments anti-religious right or anti-scientific left are just, well, dumb--it's clear the one side doesn't even attempt to understand the other. In the past, this was the domain of the religious right not understanding the scientific left; in recent years, the gap has closed.
btw, I'm a Republican.
If you're a geek or a nerd, the greatest danger to you has more to do with socially competent but intellectually incompetent extroverted individuals. Those who split hairs, definitions to make a point while you miss out on the big picture, what is at stake, lacking focus and asking what the values are of the speakers. The utilitarian and religious societies are hardly out to get you. The social liberals aren't out to get anyone either. Most want to be left alone and to live their lives.
Which is something the left has not done, mainly because it's co-opted science as its choice namesake. A great example of this is the recent issue of Scientific American (October 2005), which included selective anti-Republican book reviews, an editors' opinion on birth control that was just outlandish and factually incorrect along with definitionally selective, and a host of other "shots" taken at the current administration. And I doubt many of the readers of that mag can even see that line being crossed repeatedly. Despite being a Republican, I don't like the Bush administration, and despite being a scientist by training and employment, found such actions (which I see over and over again) simply out of bounds and over the top.
If you are an individual of science, you should be offended at the abuses from the right AND the left. If you are a political person, you are already offended whichever side you stand and end up either supporting or undermining the strategy the opposition uses (support science for the liberals, undercut science by the religious right). That's because there are these jackasses that don't report in full, they state half truths, and editorialize to a political advantage and abuse their position. Bush is a prime example, but what he certainly has done is drawn out the ugliness of the left as well. Shame on you for not taking the correct path as well as falling for it.
Read
Thus, the science loses, due to such misuse. In sweeping as
What the heck are you talking about?
NSF Budget
It is possible that it is becoming more difficult to get grants, because the number of applicants is increasing faster than the funding. This does not imply funding is decreasing, however!
I'm saying that our traditional antipathy towards science has become outright hostility in recent years, as evidenced by the push for religious instruction in the science classroom. The current movement against traditional science instruction is not something new, it has been building up since the early 1980s.
Back when we were fighting the godless Commies, we recognized the need for science education and we pushed hard for students to excel and the curriculum to be solid. Now we just want science classes to reinforce what we already believe.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I remember when I started in Engineering at college, they asked how many people's parents were engineers... I think I was the only person who didn't raise his hand.
Ask a random five-year-old what an engineer is, and they'll probably say he drives a train. Most kids grow up with no idea what engineering is, unless they're from a family of engineers. Every little kid knows what a doctor is.
Most of the tech jobs people actually do can't be explained to kids, because most people outside of the profession have no idea what they're doing. So few kids think of them as viable careers, don't develop an interest, whatever.
I know when I was five, I wanted to be an "inventor."
Have you considered getting out of acedemia? At least in my field (aerospace) engineers tend to be very well compensated, and I've chemical is even better.
China has ten times as many people? India has five times?
Populations and number of engineering graduates last year.
China: 1.3 billion total; over 600,000 new engineers last year.
India: 1 billion total; 350,000 new engineers last year.
US: 300 million total; 70,000 new engineers last year.
Comparing the US to China, try slightly less than one fourth the population with slightly less than one ninth the number of new engineers last year. Last I checked one fourth is not equal to one ninth.
You, sir, are wrong. We are getting our collective asses kicked.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
if our corporations were ran by people with science and engineering backgrounds who cared about long-term research and development rather than ran by MBAs with BAs in Medieval History and Philosophy who can't differentiate a simple function or write a line of code, and who care more about short-term profits and $$$, then perhaps we'll see some more scientific and engineering progress in this country
The above quoted posting is emblematic of problems associated with the National Academies' report discussed in this article, as well as much of the related discourse here on slashdot. The overall problem is not with science and engineering education per se, but with the overall education system as a whole. Whether a person seeking a college education seeks a final degree in science, engineering, or Medieval History and Philosophy, the most important part of a four year education is that it be broad and rigorous. Students should come out of college being able to write well, think critically, and be conversant, or at least familiar, with a broad range of topics beyond their specialization in arts, sciences, social sciences, or the humanities.
Narrowing the focus of fundraising and effort to the educational domains of science and engineering, rather than pushing for the revitalization and re-funding of all sectors of U.S. education system, is not going to solve the problem. The writer who posted the comment to which I replied is a case in point. Aside from the obvious grammatical issues (noted in bold), the author belies a narrowness of view by suggesting that someone with a degree in Medieval History and Philosophy would be the type of person apt to have a short-term, profit oriented mentality. I suppose this is possible, but it is pretty unlikely. Most people who bother to study medieval history and philosophy care deeply about the past, about long term processes, and usually about ethics and the future of the humanity. An excellent example would be G.K. Chesterston, an early twentieth century journalist who spent most of his life writing about the contemporary human condition using, oddly enough, the lessons of medieval history and philosophy as his ethical starting point.
From his vantage point in the "medieval past," (amon his most famous works are biographies of Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi) Chesterton produced a criticism of Business Education that I think many would find agreeable. I close by quoting it, with the reminder that it is equally applicable to a "science and engineering" education as well.
From All is Grist
"The nuisance of all this notion of Business Education, of a training for certain trades, whether of plumber or plutocrat, is that it will prevent the intelligence being sufficiently active to criticize the trade and business properly."
- G.K. Chesterton (his use of italics in the above quote)
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
But he wasn't calling the UK England. He was calling England a nation, i.e. a politically organized body of people under a single government.
Silly jock.
More people, more papers.
As I have posted here numerous times, a smart person can make a lot more money in law, business, or medicine, all without having to stay in school until one is 30 (or older, depending on the number of post-docs you have to grind through).
Err. Well, I'm in this troubled spot: agreeing with you, but needing to quibble over some details. Perhaps you aren't including CS in science (old quip, "anything calling itself a science isn't"). Be that as it may:
My wife is physician. I know ALOT of physicians. Methinks you're underestimating the time commitment involved in getting started in Medicine. Other thing: it's not unusual for a physician to end residency with well over $100K in medical school debt.
I'm a software "engineer". My wife and I are the same age. If you subtract her debt service from her income, I outearn her, and that's before you add the rolling residual income from previous investments into that formula.
C//
The current starting rate for a postdoc at University of Pennsylvania is $31,807.2 3.html
http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v50/n26/OR-stipend03
You can make almost $36K after being there four years. Meanwhile, plan to work at least 60 hours/week.
That's after spending 6-8 years on a PhD.
Someone smart enough to do science could get a 5 year bachelor's degree in accounting, pass the CPA exam and make about $40K to start. If I had it to do over, I know what I'd do.
Use the "overrated" mod category so you can't be hit in metamoderation.
"Confessions of an Engineering Washout" by Douglas Kern
My generalization is that most Professors/Instructors/TAs neither want to teach nor want to learn how to teach even though their primary occupation is teaching. Consequently the USA will continue to have issues churning out science & engineering graduates.Recommendations based on memories twenty-years ago:
+ Professors/Instructors/TAs should watch a video tapes of themselves giving lectures or providing assistance during office hours
+ Professors/Instructors/TAs office-hours should occur at reasonable science & engineering times (e.g. immediately after class & late in the evening)
+ Professors/Instructors/TAs should verify that the curriculum at 'SmartyPantsU' is self-consistent. For example, does 2nd year calc really assist with 3rd year electro-dynamics and why the one year gap between learning the subject matter (vector calc) and applying the subject matter (E&M vector calc)?
+ Professors/Instructors/TAs should be engaged in small-lab research that can actively utilize the services of undergrads
+ Continued employment of Professors/Instructors/TAs to include metrics (1) post graduation surveys of alumni at one-year, five-year, ten-year points (2) subject matter GRE scores of graduates (3) end-of-course critiques (4) ???
+ Eliminate Tenure???
I believe Juanita
The bottom line is that math, science, and physics research tends to be labor intensive, and we know what globalism does to labor-intensive industries. "Encouraging" young to people to work their butts off so that they can compete with $3/hour PhD's in the third world is just not going to work.
Being a biz whiz or lawyer is where the detail-oriented students go to make the money, not tech. If we want to keep tech in this country, it will have to be subsidized, which is an ugly word in the current red-state thinking. However, we subsidize the h8ll out of farming. Is farming more important than technology? You tell me.
Table-ized A.I.
Yup because a few people have been trying to get a paragraph or 2 about inteligent design in some textbook in bumblefuck USA...even though they haven't succeed yet its somehow dragging our science down. I mean cmon folks, stop blaming religion and get your facts straight. Religion was far more prevalent 20,30,40,50yrs ago, 42% attend church regularly now compared to around 70% in the 1960's. Perhaps you all have it wrong perhaps the lack of church is the cause of the downfall of science I know it sounds strange but, religion offers guidence and values, something kids aren't going to get with 50CENT. Contrary to slashdot believe church goers don't believe that science is bad and that if we want new technolody we should pray to god that he sends us a tech schematic on how to build a faster CPU. Now back to the values and guidence, the lack of church now isn't the only source of values and guidence that has gone dry, lets not forget about the divorce rate, we have 10s of millions of kids with broken families. You have a Mom or dad trying to support their kids by can't give them proper values or help with the homework because they have to work double shift. Heck even families that are still together are failing to instill values and help their kids with homework now that both parents in a lot of homes are working. Finally taking my own experience teachers now are barely one step in front of the kids now, take the teachers addition of the math text away and the class will be "reviewing" how to do basic math for the next week until the new book arrives
If it deserves a mention, it is to ridicule it as non-science. The "blind watchmaker" is NOT anything close to intelligent design. The reason that scientists like myself slam this so hard is because it's patently ridiculous as science. So, someone believes something...does that make it science? A lot of people believe people are good natured, so should we teach it as science? Of course not. You may think you're being fair, but the only responsible way to teach it is as junk, and that would cause even more problems than just ignoring it. Discuss it a sociology or philosophy class, if you must, but not science class. If you do, expect to be teaching kids that the holocaust might not have happened in history class.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
It would be interesting to see the wages of techies and scientists compared to other professions such as doctor, lawyer, salesperson, etc. for each country. In otherwords, I suspect that sci/tech pays more compared to other professions in the third world and is thus more attractive to students. If that is the case, then it is simply the economics of comparative advantage that is shifting such fields overseas.
Table-ized A.I.
This happened to Einstein when he took a job in Prague. He had to change "none" to "Jewish." Despite all the quotes mentioning "God," Einstein after he was 12 was as areligous as the biggest athiest out there. He just equated the natural world and its laws with "God" which seems a bit more fair than what organized religion does. "None," and "none of the above" should always be options.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
> Last time I looked the US was the 1st on the list of scientific
> papers published by countries with more than 60% of the papers.
Then you must not have looked since about 1960. As of 2005, the US published only 33% of world science papers, significantly less than the EU (38%) and only half again more than Asia-Pacific (25%). source, more detail
What's interesting to note is that the EU's share of world publications has increased by almost 20% in the last 20 years (from 32%) and Asia's by almost 100%, but the USA's has fallen by almost 20% (from 40% to 33%).
In other words, the US has been losing its tech edge for at least the last 20 years.
If these students get job offers and pass a security screening test, they should automatically get work permits and expedited residence status. If they cannot get a job, their visas should expire.
This kind of thinking is why we are competing against desparate slave tech labor. I worked with one H1B who was only paid once every six months. Companies know they can pull this kind of shit with 3rd-world workers and that is why they liked them. Blame our education all you want, but I've seen the real story with my own eyes. Intel spinners can go to hell.
Table-ized A.I.
Your argument is non sequitur. You cant conclude that physicians dont earn more than scientists based on the colleration between physician and engineer wages.
Talk about blatent fallacies of logic.
Of course, perhaps it is not ruled by mediocrity, because everyone is kind of expected to excel. But there is no reward for excelling more than others, and socially speaking, one receives punishment (through lack of recognition, ridicule by peers, pressure to not out-compete, etc...sound familiar?) for breaking the mould.
Mind you this is not only in schools, but in companies as well.
However, Japanese science and math education are ahead of the US. My 10th graders are learning math that I personally didn't learn until 11th grade in the States (Trig./Advanced math) and a lot of my peers didn't learn until 12th grade. These same 10th graders are doing biology that I was studying in 12th grade Bio.II in HS and Bio.I in University. They are also learning physics (and having calculus taught in those classes), which a.) wasn't integrated when I was in school (not to toot my own horn, but I was the only one in my class that figured that calculus and physics were completely related) and b.) wasn't even offered until 12th grade in my HS.
So, I'm not disagreeing with the parent post. Just giving another perspective on it. It seems the main problem in the US is the above mentioned "ruled by mediocrity". There is too much playing to the lowest common denominator rather than pushing everyone up to a (IMHO) reasonable level.
I hope that changes.
P.S. To give some perspective, I graduated from HS in Pennsylvania in 1996 and graduated university with a B.S. in Ecology/Marine Biology in Florida in 2000. I don't know well about the current US education system except that the FCATs (Florida's standardized test for 10th graders) seemed incredibly easy for students at that level. More insight would definitely be appreciated. :-)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
And sadly, those four years of English seem to have little impact. I attend a very highly-regarded university in the US, and all freshmen are required to take a writing seminar. I was shocked when I saw the writing of my classmates. In my class of seventeen, only three actually know how to write. Two went to private school, and I went to public school, but I didn't learn how to write in school. My mother, a former English teacher and journalist of sorts, taught me how to write with discipline. Public schools simply don't teach that same sort of discipline; not even mine did so, despite being a very good public school.
fireboy1919 insightfully said:
And to me, the problem is that there is not enough incentive for those who "can do it" to teach it. Teaching salaries (in the US) are not high. The hours are long, but not as long as some lines of work. However, there is a lot of shit in the education system that good teachers have to deal with and the low pay makes it not worth dealing with. Teachers not getting proper incentive and good teachers not getting the respect they deserve...these are the main part of the problem in my opinion.There needs to be more incentive for "those who can" to teach! There also needs to be some better standards to ensure that those who can't, and especially those who can't teach, don't teach.
Of course (disclaimer: saying this as a teacher), it takes a special type of person to teach what you know well. I had a lot of professors in University that could do their work very well, but couldn't teach worth a crap.
So, the main problem (to me) is finding someone who both knows his/her stuff, AND can teach that to others. These people when they are found need to be given incentives to teach (good pay, respect).
IMNSHO, it should be difficult to become a teacher, but the incentives should make that difficulty worth facing. Otherwise, the trend of mediocre teachers will continue.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
The businesses need to patent (which lasts 20 years) and copyright (90, at the last count).
Patenting and copyrighting gets in the way of doing the science.
Fix that, and you will get more science
This is kind of why I think it is cool that in Japanese schools (well, at least the school I work at), calculus is being introduced (at a basic level) in the physics classes, where (IMHO) it makes sense to introduce it.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I think the culture argument is mostly baloney, and the state of IP in the US contributes substantially.
Look back forty or more years, and you will notice masses of childrens' books (Tom Swift, Danny Dunn, and so forth) that gushed over scientist heroes and the use of new technologies. Look at amateur radio and electronics kits -- how many kids do you see playing with these any more? They've been supplanted by the Playstation and other alluring time-wasters. Some of this is just plain evolution of technology -- fifty years ago, consumer electronics just weren't all that far from the hobbyist stage, so if you were interested in playin with tech, you had to learn to be more than a simple user.
I don't think that movies are a great example. Being a "geek" is viewed as a better thing now than before companies like Microsoft started getting a lot of press. A lot of action heroes now have the obligatory computer-guy-hacker-type sidekick on their team. I *do* think that the emphasis has shifted away from learning about science and engineering and using those skills to *using* products produced by science and engineering.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Anyhow, I covered the corporate welfare aspect of companies like Intel in this article.
I honestly doubt we really can have guys like Barrett running companies like Intel and really improve the math/science situation in the US. We need to rethink US immigration policy, money in politics and the whole set of intellectual property laws and the tendency for lawyers and CEO's to dominate the legislative process so.
Sorry, the Intel/Microsoft/Cisco "We want the top 10%, and only the top 10%" isn't sustainable, even with a surplus of cheap H1B's.
Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco don't give a rat's ass whether or not they hire the "top 10%". There's no benefit to them in hiring a certain percentage. What they want is competent employees. The unfortunate reality is that a pretty large chunk (maybe 90% is hyperbole, but it's up there) of the people in the software development world just plain aren't competent. And a lot of the people griping about "there being no jobs" are just not competent. Harsh to say it, perhaps, but true.
Someone walking out and doing the bare minimum to get a degree simply does not make them a competent worker (and that goes for prestigious universities as well, like Stanford, CMU, MIT, etc). It is quite possible to get a degree and simply not *know* enough to be particularly useful.
As Joel Spolsky put it Third, and trust me on this, there's still an incredible shortage of the really good programmers, here and in India. Yes, there are a bunch of out of work IT people making a lot of noise about how long they've been out of work, but you know what? At the risk of pissing them off, really good programmers do have jobs.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
It's not even your general culture. It's your public education system, which sucks every imaginable mode of ass. It is a union-captured mediocrity-ruled Prussian-designed system absolutely intended to hammer the individual flat to the collective.
If you are going to excel, it's not going to be from the bare minimum that schools dole out. It's from getting interested and *reading* about physics beyond whatever worksheets the teacher hands out in highschool, studying image processing algorithms beyond what your college professor *forces* you to study.
A school is designed to force you to at least maintain some kind of bare minimum standard, so that we have a population of people that aren't completely ignorant. You aren't going to be the next Newton if your approach to education is to sit back and hope that the public or private education system magically makes you knowledgeable.
Home schooling has some appeal, but you know what? Maybe public school teachers aren't perfect, but they've spent years learning how to handle the problems students run into. A random parent is pretty damn unlikely to be a whole lot better -- they can offer an individualized rate of study and a higher teacher-to-student ratio, but that's about it. And home schooling does some bad stuff socially, IMHO. Going to public school often sucked in my memory, because people were assholes. The thing is, they were often assholes because they hadn't yet learned how to deal nicely and reasonably with society. But you know what? You need to learn how to deal with people too, unless you plan to live in a cave for the rest of your life, and that's a big chunk of what school does for you -- it *forces* you to interact with and deal with people that you might not really want to work with. It's a lot better that you learn how to handle interaction now than discover that you've no idea what to do fifteen years later on the job, where your employer is going to be a lot less lenient.
The other thing that really irks me is the fact that home-schooling is frusteratingly tied up in the issue of secular/religious education. A lot of people who I don't really agree with have realized that they aren't going to have any luck indoctrinating their kid in Christianity unless they isolate them from other people -- otherwise, the kid's going to have the good sense to take one look and say "this is nonsense, and my friends think so too". Schools won't teach Christianity? Yank the kid out of school! Definitely not a good way to build the pillars of the next generation...
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Dropouts are not reading the bible. They are playing X-box, vandalizing their neighborhood, and buying gangster rap CDs marketed to suburban kids.
You need to visit rural West Virginia. They do all the above (except maybe not the X-Box) and *do* read the Bible.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
The right wants intelligent design mentioned as a side note during biology class in the public schools.
The left already has outright Gaia worship in the public schools.
Just like the UK, in the US technology/science workers are not paid proper wages.
Also, part time contracts lack security, and the contracting culture is certainly not helpful.
Don't expect the best people to join these professions, as long as these mediocre conditions persist.
Scientists are basically the same throughout the world. They are the original creaters of culture based on shared interest instead of nationalism.
Science will tend to follow production, product development, and engineering, and the shift away from the USA is already decades old.
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, which is why it's no big deal to me, although it was nice to have the results available in English.
In the U.S a good engineer makes $100,000 a year. Somebody who works at Mcdonalds makes $15,000 a year.
In India a good engineer makes $40,000 a year. Somebody who works at the local noodle shop makes $1000 a year.
So if we had a similar wage differential in the U.S an engineer would make $600,000 a year. If engineers made that much I am positive that there would be a huge rush for people to be engineers. It all comes down to simple economics.
This is good argument, Your are probably right. I live in Morocco and engineers have a rather decent pay compared to Lawyers and "some" doctors, and they are still highly regarded (for how long ?). Maybe we are still in the situation where the US was 20 ou 30 years ago.
An other important factor to consider is that lawyers and doctors are protected from international competition by the legal system, which is definetly not the case for programmers and (most) engineers.
It's just basic economic law.
Can someone summarize TFA? I'm too busy playing video games to read it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Whatever your opinion of intelligent design or creationism, it deserves a mention because so many people believe it
That's called "social studies".
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
"Quick! We need to sex up science! It's not INTERESTING like business and marketing!"
It's been a long time.
As you age, she will continue to see patients, earn significant money until much older. Many engineers either move into managment, specialize, or well, don't. And, the initial investment I suspect is *kept* artificially high for the various historical, economic, and the medical establishment.
Medical, as a "protected profession", will mostly guarantee that the initial cost will be absorbed over time.
For some aspects, there is still a lot of demand - in the 'ultimate' science programs that leave you poor until you are old, like my MD-PhD Program (avg entering age 24 yrs + 8 yrs in the program + 4 yrs residency = 36 or so for a Junior faculty position).
But we will get respect - serious respect. And while we may have the option of 'cashing out' - most of us dont do it, and continue to work for a measly $75 compared to the 200+ we could get on the outside. Why? Because the science is worth it. On the high end, I believe the demand is being filled.
Although, sometimes I have to ask 'Why am I here...'
As I have posted here numerous times, a smart person can make a lot more money in law, business, or medicine, all without having to stay in school until one is 30 (or older, depending on the number of post-docs you have to grind through).
Wow, you obviously don't know much about the medical profession. All those high paid doctors you see, how long do you think they went to school and had to train? It's a hell of a lot longer than just 4 years of med school. For example, you want to be a Cardiologist? Ok, that will be 4 years of college, 4 years of grad school, 3 years of a medicine residency (making 35k a year), and 3 years of a Cardiology residency (skill making 35k a year). Then when you're finally done, at the age of 31 BTW and that's if you didn't take any time off and started right out of college you finally get to make some money. Oh and don't forget the 200k+ in student loans.
Sure you can do a 'simple' residence like pediatrics or general medicine and be done in just 11years (undergrad+grad+residency), but the salaries for general practioners aren't as extravagant as you might think. Call me crazy but 140k a year (and you only start out a 80k in a market like Wash. D.C.) doesn't seem unreasonable after all the time an money a doctor has to invest in their education.
Oh yeah, don't forget the 70hr weeks you have to put in as a resident. And trust me, its a REAL 70hr week. Ever work a 12+hr shift on your feet (no desks or offices) and be responsible for not killing someone? I didn't think so.
Being an MD 'ain't' exactly like 'House', 'Scrubs', or 'ER'.
Belligerent, insightful and funny. I like it!
I quit!
a scientist makes quite a bit less than an American scientist, but as much as a Japanese doctor and more than a lawyer, typically.
I agree, this has a lot to do with comparitive advantage. Unlike law and medicine, science is easily moved across oceans. Hence, American scientists are competing against Chinese and Indian scientists, while American doctors and lawyers are not competing against their foreign peers. Scientists' wages are driven down, relatively, causing Americans to switch away from science.
The tough question is what (if anything) we should do about this.
quite a bit higher than those of a scientist. I don't have time to dig up the numbers tonight but it is quite significant (several hundred thousand real dollars). The time commitment from undergrad to finishing residency is similar to a PhD/post-doc route.
A PhD scientist barely beats out a BS engineer in lifetime earnings precisely because of the reasons you mentioned. Trust me, it is hard for me sometimes to see my engineering friends pulling down $60k while I am still struggling in the low twenties. They have cars, homes, babies, IRAs, 401ks, and a zillion other things I cannot possibly afford.
You just made my point. I'd take a $200k debt and double my future salary in a heartbeat. Even figuring in interest and the doctors higher taxes, it would take no more than 5 years of using that salary differential to pay off the debt. The 70k difference is pure profit for the doctor for the next 30 years.
Actually, the real difference is not so big (probably closer to half a million than two), but the point is the same. Doctors make a lot more money. They also have more job flexibility (they can work in almost any community they want), and don't have to worry about Chinese ending their practice any time soon.
You cant conclude that physicians dont earn more than scientists...
No I didn't. You just made that up.
C//
Sorry my friend, but once again you are showing you ignorance of the medical profession. Do you know anything about malpractice insurance? Sure a MD may make 140k a year, but Med Mal can be 30k or higher. That's pre tax. In specialties (like obgyn) where you make much more, med mal insurance can be 150-200k (pre-tax). In some instances you pre-tax income is only 60k after subtracting med mal insurance, not to mention overhead for your office etc. Of course, that 60k doesn't look so great after a 60+hr work week and taxes.
Listen, when you have 200k+ in debt making even 100k (60k or less after taxes)a year isn't going to allow you to pay it down very quickly. Also remember that residents make only 35k a year. So for 3-7 to seven years you can't even begin to bay down your debt.
Also, most MDs would be in heaven just having to work 60hr weeks. Residents routinely work an 80hr weeks and that's only because of a recent law (governing accreditation of programs) that mandated that residents could ONLY work an 80hr week. BTW that 80hr week doesn't include the time you have to spend studying and reading once you get off work. The best part is, that most programs are finding it hard to comply with the 80hr work week mandate. John's Hopkins almost lost its accreditation recently because they couldn't comply.
Out of curiosity, how much debt are you carrying?
So? This has always been true.
What's changed?
There was an empowerment management move in the 1980s. Industry leaders were, in effect, mining employees for talent above and beyond the job description and management level.
What's ironic is that Intel was a prime example where they had empowerment programs.
Inteal had a robust open door policy whereby if your boss isn't listening to your idea you can go to some other manager.
Intel also had a program whereby for one year a person could rotate through various job positions over a period of one year to better fine tune your career.
In my opinion, business has sold out the employee and are now treating employees as a commodity and not people. So, in the post-empowerment era it is ok to fire people and lay them off, create a incessant, hostile work environment were layoffs happen every day, expect no loyalty from employees and return none.
Treating people like cattle is a short-sighted perspective. For sure there are short tem gains to be had. In some respect this is understandable after the bubble pop of 2000.
In the end, it won't be the case that American companies like Intel fail becuase of a shortage of scientists and engineers in this country.
In the end it will be Craig Barrett's and other executive management's short-sighted policy of treating employees like crap the brings down corporations. And it is truly ironic that this short-sighted, short-term gain policy comes on the heels of an era in the 1980s and early 1990s when companies had learned to mine employees and get awesome value that created the wealth and a future view of irrational exuberent optimism in the 1990s.
Executive managers lost courage and vision; they have become the timeless, nincompoop, ineffective, unable to compete "lump of coal" Scrooge we are all familiar with in the Christmas Story. Failure or fear of failure after the dot com bust scared them and they lost faith. They should all be shipped to India and other places they have sold us out too, to live out the rest of their natural lives with only the salaries they are now paying to their offshore employees.
Then perhaps these corporations should step up to the plate and actually invest in the school systems. One of the reasons plants get built overseas is to avoid taxes. It's those taxes that would pay for the education that these companies keep bemoaning. If these companies kept jobs here in the U.S. the property taxes paid by high tech employees would also contribute. Many of those employees would also contribute to better education by sending their children to private schools, helping those schools improve.
If the jobs go overseas, where exactly is the money for education supposed to come from, all the people flipping burgers at fast food jobs?
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
It takes a true love of your field to stay in most sciences these days...
For example, I got a bachelors, started at $13,000 ("But it's just a foot in the door!") worked for five years up to $24,000. Then I went to grad school and got a masters. This qualifies me to a job making...maybe $28,000? But I went for the PhD, which is what I'm doing now. By the time I'm done I'll have ten years of schooling and I'll be making (at current rates) maybe $60,000. Now I'm okay with that...I made peace with the fact that I will never be rich a long time ago. But its been a little tough psychologically when all my CS friends, and even those who weren't CS but happened to have a single programming class, went off and got computer jobs that paid several times mine right out of college, and all of them already make considerably more than I will make once I finish my six years of 90 hours a week for less than $17,000 a year.
Add that to a social/political environment which ignores or manipulates science freely and in which a great proportion of society seems to resent and distrust scientists.
After note: sorry. It was early AM, and I misread your comment. My point was that I wasn't concluded that (this should have been obvious from my aside regarding computer 'science', yes?).
As far as the chemists-earn-shit problem (well, unless you are a winery chemist), this is an issue of the market. Sad, but true.
I wonder how chemists do versus engineers and physicians in china, india, and japan?
C//
No jobs in the big city. No jobs in small towns. Virtually all the jobs are in small cities (50k-250k) randomly flung across the country, in such desirable places as Mt. Vernon, In. or Midland, Mi. You will have the skills for maybe a dozen companies and be lucky to get two job offers.
I know several dual-professional couples who managed to follow each other based on the doctor's flexibility, for example. This is close to impossible for a scientist. Either our spouse follows us to Midland, we quit our career track to follow him or her, or we split.
It is skyrocketing increases in applications, not decreases in funding, that is causing the low odds.
Grant Applications
I posted the OMB data for actual money spent on R&D. It is not decreasing, and in fact has gone up significantly in the last decade. It probably won't increase much or perhaps even decrease this year, but given our current budget problems this is something everyone across the political spectrum has to deal with.
are seriously considering it. The proof is in the pudding - many would-be scientists are fleeing to medicine, law, business, etc. Meanwhile, new bright students are voting with their feet and avoiding science careers in the first place. That is why our numbers are declining. Of course, wages will eventually equalize as we flood those other markets.
I think this has more to do with foreign competition than anything else. Our wages are being dragged down and our unemployment is growing. Big American corporations have pretty much stopped creating new science jobs in the US (they do hire as replacements for retirees), while opening up 50 or 100 scientist centers in China and India by the dozen.
Wow. What a typically oblivious reply.
I was speaking of science and engineering - a field that encompasses far more than computer scientists. Computer Scientists make up a very small portion of that field, and it's specialty that has a very broad competence distribution. Many other fields are much more tightly grouped, yet Intel still hires only the best. There are literally tens of thousands of competent workers that Intel has fired. I know, I work with them daily at highly profitable companies. The same holds for Microsfot and Cisco. They've based their business model on obtaining "highly competent" workers. Unfortunately as your business increases in size the relative supply of such workers decreases. You can call them "competent" you can call them whatever you'd like, but when desirable workers are in the minority a field is bound for change. It's why John Henry lost out.
On a side note I'll guess that you are still a young career professional, if indeed you've graduated? You'll probably find as you move into the "real" world, that technical skills are a commodity, and priced as such. Managerial and sales skills are not priced as such, and are much more transferrable. I know what I'm aiming for.
> He said "by country" The EU is a large collection of countries.
And if I had ever said otherwise, you might have a point.
> You have not shown that his comment is wrong nor outdated.
He said that the US published 60% of scientific papers. I showed that not only does the US publish much, much less than that, it hasn't published anywhere near 60% of scientific papers in decades, and its share of world publications is dropping while other major publishers have their shares increasing.
Were you to read and understand my post, you'd find that you're arguing against things I've never said. While I'll admit that's easier than arguing against what I have said, it's rather less useful.
> And you can thank politic's alone for that number!
I strongly suspect the effect is due to development, not politics. Most of the rest of the world - especially Asia - is playing catch-up with the US in terms of economic development (due to many factors, such as WWII). And, since they're playing catch-up, they'll tend to expand more quickly, which means their expenditures on research will expand more quickly, which means their share of publications will go up.
AFAICT, all this means is that the rest of the world is catching up to the US in terms of industrialization. With 5% of the population, one would expect the US to slowly move towards publishing 5% of the scientific papers, which is pretty much what we see.
Get Yer passports baby, this popsicle stand is heading towards Ayatollaville! Talibapstists will flay your skin for being an evil wizard, ie scientist! I'd rather become belgian than get killed sticking around here too long. Unfortuneately the EU has opened up europe to the moslem fundies, so eventually it'll be sharia law in the UK. Fucking moslems in the UK are trying to revive 13th centry blasphemy laws, to squash any questioning of the moslem religion. "oh, you don't think islam respects woman's rights, well buddy that's blasphemy and religous intollerance, time for you to go to jail!" And the fucking christians here wage jihad against Evolution and science. Everyday you stay out of politics, is a day these fuckers pick away at your rights, you won't even notice it until people start going to jail for speaking out against superstition and for science. That retard george bush just dumped his completely-unskilled supreme court nominiee, its like Nero appointing a horse to the senate! These people want the "end times" and unless we stop them they're going to make it come true God or No God!