Slashdot Mirror
MA Governor Wants More New Tech
turnitover writes "Cryptically stating that Asia wants the U.S. to become 'the France of the 21st century,' Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a public call for more innovation in technology, reports eWEEK.com. He urged more investment and development and, yes, a move to OpenDocument, as reported previously on Slashdot." From the article: "Underlining the challenge, Romney said leaders of one technology firm in Massachusetts anticipated that 90 percent of its skilled labor would be in Asia in 10 years. He also pointed to statistics that show the United States graduating only 4,400 mathematics and science PhDs each year compared with 24,900 math and science PhDs for greater Asia."
OK....here's what I took away from this article:
Asia would like us to become the France of the 21st century.
Wow...one statement that manages to offend both the Americans and the French. Well done, sir!
China and India have a population a multiple of ours.
While I'm certain this statement is factually correct (it can't help but be), I nevertheless find myself wondering just what multiple Romney is alluding to here. Three? Ten? Two-fiths? i?
In foreign policy he [Romney] said we must win the war against a "radical jihad," but that we must enable jihadists to become part of the global economy.
Ahh...there we go...I bet the Islamic fundamentalists were feeling left out by this point. Nice to see Romney managed to squirrel in a jab at the boogyman of international terrorism during his call for more tech innovation....at this point, his speech is sounding spookily like a platform for running for office...
Romney, a Republican, has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate.
OK, now I'm scared.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Yes, the US graduates fewer PhDs in math and physics. I'm trying to be one of them. But the quality of the US PhD programs are what brought me here (I'm not USian). You can graduate a million PhDs from a degree farm somewhere but if they haven't had the same level of education they aren't going to be as influential. I'm not saying that asian universities are bad, just that there needs to be a deeper insight into this than just raw numbers.
Greater Asia has over 3.5 Billion people! The US is just scratching 300 Million. So we are still doing better than them in Math/Science PhDs, percentage-wise.
Perhaps you should compare the base population of "greater Asia" to the base population of the US... then the figure would seem incredibly skewed towards the US.
Romney needed to act on this 3-4 years ago.
I've been part of the tech downturn at the time. Many of my ex-co-workers left the state because there were too few opportunities.
The state spent lots of money paying unemployment insurance, and the unemployed were effectively prevented from starting up their own companies because they would lose benefits the day they registered their company.
All these well qualified individuals could not use their skills during that time. Instead, they left for less costly pastures.
Massachusetts was the only state to lose population in 2004. And it wasn't losing those on the dole.
"Cryptically stating that Asia wants the U.S. to become 'the France of the 21st century,"
Wouldn't a better analogy be, "the England of the 21st century". After all we do have troops in the same cities around the world (Baghdad, Kabul) as Britain at the turn of the 20th century. We did take the position of world power from the British. Much of our common law is based from British law. But hey, the sun never sets on the British Empire....
That's as may be, but it neglects the fact that the US produces virtually all of the world's Intelligent Design specialists. And that's where the future is, not in the witchcraft practices of math and science.
He also pointed to statistics that show the United States graduating only 4,400 mathematics and science PhDs each year compared with 24,900 math and science PhDs for greater Asia."
Correct me if I am wrong, but since greater Asia has a population of 4 billion , as opposed to the US's 297 million , that is a pretty favourable ratio in favour of the US ( about 2.5 times as many graduates per capita ).
Even if he only means "Asia" as in "China and India and Japan", the US still has more graduates per capita.
Make education possible for everyone at costs comparable to Asia/Europe/etc and you will have more PhDs.
But will people pay the taxes to do it?
The reality is that people simply don't want to pay for anything. They expect services from the government yes, but in the end, for a lot of things, they'd rather pay no tax than have some services.
Even if the US slips behind and loses its position as the worlds biggest economy and/or science nation, Americans will still not reform their education system. This is because in the end, beneath all the rhetoric, all the patriotism, all the pride, all the manifest destinies, there has been only one true constant in America. The Buck.
And more correctly "My Buck". And no american will fork it over without a danm good reason.
May the Maths Be with you!
I don't find arguments based on how many PhDs we produce to be compelling. How many PhDs do we need? Are there severe shortages currently? Do we need more PhDs or more BScs? I say these things as someone who has a PhD, and who has hired several of them. I have not seen evidence that we have a huge shortage.
USA has generally kept ahead by inventing stuff and that's why it'll probably stay ahead of Asia, the economies future isn't going to be reliant on writing some basic HTML code at minimum wage, it's going to be dependant on continuing to come up with great new ideas. Asia is generally looking to be a solutions provider for everything under the sun rather than making their own stuff. And they're renowned for making inventions slightly smaller and adding a clock. Anyway, good luck to them.
"He suggested paying teachers a $5,000 bonus for teaching Advanced Placement courses, as well as giving the top third of teachers a $5,000 bonus."
How does paying specific teachers more really solve the problem? I could be wrong here, but doesn't it just say that better paid people are happier?
Besides, if you think about it, don't teachers already want to teach AP classes as is? I mean, they usually have the smarter kids, that are more worried about their futures. Therefore, on average, the students that are most likely be hard working and willing to learn, not just to goof off and get a diploma.
From this logic, teaching AP sounds easier and more rewarding...
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
"Cryptically stating that Asia wants the U.S. to become 'the France of the 21st century"
It's only cryptic if you don't understand that France is a former world power that has been permanently eclipsed economically, technologically, culturally, and militarily, and it has an almost obsessive desire to act as if it is America's nemesis, complaining almost reflexively of most of America's moves on the international stage.
That's not to say that the French aren't nice people, nor that I wouldn't love to hang out on one of their topless beaches, nor watch Paris's nightly display of lights, but in the realpolitik world, France doesn't matter! Thus their desire for a strong, core European Union, which along with Germany, they hope to dominate, to unite Europe as a strong and meaningful entity on the global stage.
You will know that the US is screwed when it seeks to create a transnational government with Canada and Mexico.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
I got presented with salary numbers yesterday from a director in my company. Even though chinese wages raise much faster, because they start so low, we actually will be widening the wage-gap until 2020 and we will only meet again in 2040. So the challenge is there, no doubt. But whassup with the France cryptic stuff?? Ok, so quite a few people around Paris are reading car-brochures right now. But if you go on holliday in RURAL France, you will soon see that "Living like God in France" is still quite close to reality.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Science, math, and engineering education and professions are disrespected by the educational system (we'd rather fund our sports teams), the government (your scientific results don't support our politics), businesses (your work is critical to us but we can't pay you more than your overseas competition), and media (entertainers are cool, geeks drool).
I doubt this will change until it's too late.
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
These sound an awful lot like the kind of things they said after Sputnik went up in October 1957. Back then, politicians fanned those flames too. Mind you it got us to the Moon and made Neil Armstrong wish he'd stayed on the farm, but still the motivation behind it turned out to be a little overdone. The Soviets burned themselves up just trying to keep up with us technologically.
From eWeek: Underlining the challenge, Romney said leaders of one technology firm in Massachusetts anticipated that 90 percent of its skilled labor would be in Asia in 10 years.
Read: rather than hiring US programmers at a decent wage, we'd rather send those jobs overseas to slightly less-skilled and cheaper workers. I wonder which firm that was?
From eWeek: He also pointed to statistics that show the United States graduating only 4,400 mathematics and science PhDs each year compared with 24,900 math and science PhDs for greater Asia.
Ok, I'll bite. Imagine how you can turn statistics to your advantage! Let's do a little math based on figures from the The Census 2000 Report. We'll take it as read that "Greater Asia" encompasses mainly India and China; as of 2000, there combined population is 2.3 billion. The US in 2000 tops out at roughly 281 million. Let's assume 60% of each group is capable of going through the motions to get a Ph. D. (I know it's not accurate or based on anything concrete; in Asia, it's probably closer to 25%).
Let's see:
- US: (4400 / (281m *
.6)) * 100) = .0026%
- Asia: (24900 / (2.3b *
.6)) * 100) = .0018%
Hardly the same. But then this is wholly unscientific (I have had to do stats in years). Still, it seems a bit premature to claim they are overwhelming us.Does that mean we can be complacent? No. Our school system in this country is still not functioning effectively and is certainly not turning out top-notch students like it used to. Too much touchy-feely, not enough 3R's. And money will not solve this problem; getting back to fundamentals will.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
He also pointed to statistics that show the United States graduating only 4,400 mathematics and science PhDs each year compared with 24,900 math and science PhDs for greater Asia." 4400 to 24900 is a ratio of 1 to 5.7. The US has about 300m people so, apply the ratio and you figure we have the same % graudated, that is 1.71 Billion. Given that the population of Asia was 3.44 Billion in '95 and is estimated at over 3.68 in 2000 (http://www.unhabitat.org/habrdd/asia.html) I would say that we are actually graduating mathematics and science PhDs at twice the rate of asia. Note: There may be a distinction between Asia and Greater Asia I do not understand and my population numbers are for Asia as a whole.
I have a relative in a chemical engineering program at a university in Georgia. He was saying that many of the other students studying for their masters and doctorates were not American. I think he quoted about 60% of them as being Asian, Middle Eastern or Indian. That is, people who came directly from such areas to study in America, not Americans of such descent.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
While I'm no fan of the decline of America's standing on the educational chart (word to you, Kansas), this guy is using an arbitrary number to jump on the bandwagon of "China's going to 0wn the US in a few years."
China makes, and for some time, has made its fortune making things...from cheap plastic toys to electronic components, circuitry, you name it.
The US (and several other advanced economies) have made their fortunes, for the most part in the last 30+ years, not from manufacturing (which has been in decline in the US since the 70s) but from the conceptualization, specification, packaging, marketing, and just moving the objects. The US will no more become a manufacturing powerhouse than China will start cranking out Google (granted, a lot of PhDs there), Madden NFL, G-Unit, and Spiderman 3. That's where the US is making its $billions these days.
Will China move up the food chain economically? Of course. Will they turn the US into a satellite economy? No. The US spends a lot because it makes a lot. There are a host of economic factors that can't be adequately explored here, but our money isn't going to up and fly away to China.
Perhaps, if this bandwagon jumper is so concerned about America's economic future, he should convince his fellow politicians that it's bad long term policy to create massive national debt that is bought up by the Chinese with all their new manufacturing profits. That's more of a financial danger than getting out-PhD'ed.
I have several Doctor Friends that were trained in Israel (as an example) and then quickly left Israel (after paying next to nothing for their MD) to come to the US to collect the big almight BUCK..
This has actually been one of the traditional reasons for the vibrancy of the US economy. As a lot of academic US workers are trained abroad, the US has not had to go to the expense of educating them. Other countries have.
This is the "Brain Drain" effect, where, it is argued, the US economy is buoyed by the educational expendature of less wealthy countries. There's a certain element of truth to this.
I wonder what will happen if US academic graduates begin to emmigrate overseas? Will the Brain Drain effect be felt in the States too?
May the Maths Be with you!
as long as they're freedom fries.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
No? You mean that the Ruling Class isn't flocking to the sciences? How many of Governor Romney's children has he convinced to make a future in science and technology?
Let me guess: his kids are being groomed for careers in law, finance, and government as befits their station in life and more realistic estimates of long-term prospects.
I wonder why he's not advocating more of the Great Unwashed go after those jobs in competition with his own ...
Oh, wait a minute!
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Damn it, Jim! He's a politician, not a mathematician!
As Barbie teaches us, "Math is hard." The other key lesson is that hard work is for the underclasses, not the ruling class. From this we learn why he wants more math and science graduates: so he doesn't have to do hard math for his own speeches.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
then employers will pay competitive salaries instead of farming out the work to H1-Bs or offshore. Only an idiot will pay 4+ years of college tuition for the privilege of competing with people whose education was totally subsidized.
The credentials of some of the offshore people are not all that great. I know someone who was an IT worker in India at age 15. His labor was being sold to US companies who were told he had a BSCS. Employers could hire US high school students with alot less muss and fuss; the results would not be much different.
When the money is right, the supply of engineers and other skilled labor will take care of itself. Until that time, rhetoric is a poor substitute for balancing supply and demand.
Right now, things are out of balance. Salaries are low, tech. people are leaving the field. As a result, the supply of tech workers is low. Employers respond by outsourcing and offshoring (which perhaps caused the problem in the first place). If you start shopping at Walmart because the prices are low, don't be too suprised when you go shopping next time and discover Walmart is now the only store in town.
For what they pay the average programmer/analyst these days, you might as well sell cars. Wages and job security might actually be better, no degree required, and the work will NOT be outsourced.
4400 - 1 + 1 = 4400 once we head north so you can't escape; we're just taking our time as it's cold up there this time of year. You can't hide from us/US. Just be happy if we still let you go by Canada and don't rename Canada to North Mexico.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Many would say that you don't get a doctorate degree for the money alone. It was not the main motivation for me either.
I live in MA, and Romney has been one colossal pain in the ass.
The man is a calculating, cold, arrogant, mean, power-brokering son of a bitch.
Please help metamoderate.
I suspect that one of the main reasons that this data could possibly be true is the substantial cost of Education here in the US.
I suspect you're wrong. What I actually suspect is that children today are raised on the idea that college is just another stage in schooling, and not something to be strived for. So they go, they get their four years of drinking, partying, and football, don't learn anything, then get a job they're not actually qualified for, despite the piece of paper that says they are.
College is supposed to be a place where you can get access to all the resources you need. Put it's a pull system. No one is going to make you do it. Since most students assume that it's really just a push system, guess what happens? Personally, I think that parents should stop preparing to send their kids to college, and let them fend for themselves. If a kid really wants to go to college, it is NEVER too late.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But I like my car -- I don't want it burned to a crisp!
We had a program like that at my kids' high school. There was a lot of competition as a result for slots teaching the AP classes.
Too bad that the teachers with math and science degrees didn't have the political clout to get those slots. The ones teaching the AP sections may not have known anything about the material, but they had great lesson plans!
I hope that the (former) teachers with math and science degrees are happier in their new jobs, whatever they are.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Except along the way he was accosted by a bum who asked him if he was running for President or not (I'm dead serious) and was nearly attacked on one of the subway platforms by a woman who was in the news for keeping about a hundred cats in her house (a fair number of them dead, and a bunch of the dead ones in several freezers.) MBTA and State Police took care of both problems.
Adding insult to injury, a reporter asked him how much the fare was, and he said "a buck". Except the MBTA has been $1.25 for over a year. The MBTA comissioner became enraged when reporters made something of it. "The governor can't be aware of everything". Except it was a MAJOR issue in the eastern end of the state- the rate hike affected commuter rail, bus, and subway customers.
It pretty much proved that not only did he not give a shit about issues that affected citizens in his state, and that he could barely be bothered to take the subway for one stop- he didn't even pay for the fare himself.
Please help metamoderate.
What's more, it's not even tax deductable. By the time you get to the point where you even have enough after-tax income to pay for the schooling, you have enough income to be disqualified for the tax breaks -- the ceiling doesn't go up with number of dependents.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Boston was recently rated the most expensive city in the US primarily due to housing costs (see bugmenot if you don't want to register for the article). Rewinn is right that the overhead of running a small business is driving employment opportunities away. Maybe it all balances out since the cost of housing is driving potential employees away.
The further development of Asian (more specifically global) manufacturing is unstoppable. This is not a bad thing. America's response will (hopefully) be increased automation and higher quality (as in German automobiles). The great thing about Asia is cheap labor. So reduce labor as a factor and you can come out ahead. This is an idiotic numbers game. Pursuing a PhD in mathematics or science requires a certain constitution. Urging more Americans to consider such degrees is unlikely to produce a wealth of qualified candidates. And besides, a Harvard PhD will tell you that he's worth at least 10 PhDs from God-Knows-Where in Asia (this is a joke). This is the only credible solution presented by Mr. Romney (the OpenDocument initiative is interesting but it has nothing to do with innovation). And it is a very unconvincing one. Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on students with the DEMONSTRATED potential to succeed? The education gap (which is a POVERTY issue, not a racial issue) is obviously a detriment to free society. But come on: it has nothing to do with high tech. A vague improvment in the general intelligence of the public will not change drastically the ability of American research and design.
I find it most amusing that Mr. Romney praises Asians for being "hard working" and "ambitious" but does not encourage instilling those qualities in American youths. Increasing the salaries of educators (which should be done for ALL educators on general principles) based on their performance is a terribly uncomprehensive plan. Implement this and students will be demonstrably better at whatever metric is used to determine which teachers deserve raises. What a wonderfully superficial improvement! Until more children are motivated (by their parents and their community) to excel at school, nothing will change.
How can this be done? I dunno, I'm not a Governor =).
The answer lies in a question: Would you want to undergo quadruple bypass heart surgery in a US hospital or one in Asia?
Having met some really, really, really scary medical students who were near graduation at a prestigious school in the U.S. I can honestly say I think I'll go to Europe for any surgeries. When a med student does not understand why you should wear gloves while handling DNA samples and equipment and calls his mother to ask what he should do when his car gets a flat tire you sort of lose confidence in the general intelligence and competence of the profession. This is more than backed up by the experiences of me and mine in medicine, with more than 75% of issues being misdiagnosed at least once before a correct diagnosis is reached.
1. It seems to be pretty much ignored thus far, but the U.S. definitely has state sponsored higher education. I claim this, because pick a state, put "University of" in front of the name, and wham, you have the name of a real university, which probably receives a lot of funding, grants tuition discounts to in-state residents, etc., etc.
2. The tax issue -- let's get this straight. If you have a Ph.D. in the maths and/or sciences area, let's just pull a number out of nowhere. You have a 'right' to command a wage near $75K, say (more or less, depending on the field, but yeah). Now, let's suppose you're Jimmy, the 'average' American citizen. Wait! You only make $45K. Why will you be excited to pay for some kid to go to college so he can make more with your money? That's going to be an exciting bill to pass... Why would you vote for someone who takes that kind of money from you?
3. The prestige factor -- let's suppose we jack up taxes so that anyone who wants to go to a PhD program can afford to. Well, that's a nice sentiment. Then what? The first response is probably that anyone without a PhD gets the shaft, both in finding jobs and in compensation, because now PhDs are a dime a dozen. Since they are a resource in greater supply, demand goes down, as does compensation. Suddenly, the average citizen has extra letters to put to their name, but their standard of living probably doesn't significantly change as a whole.
The wonder and curse of the free market system is that people will pay what a degree is worth for people who have it (compare all those jokes about engineers and liberal arts majors involving asking for wanting fries with that). If there was a huge shortage of qualified PhD holders, having a PhD would be like a ticket to big money, and there would be huge incentive to get them. I don't see that as being the case -- in our society, if you have one, you make more, but not a ton more (in fact, I remember being counseled when graduating with a BS in CS that pursuing an MS or a PhD full time was not cost effective, as you never made up the time * salary in terms of the difference in remuneration went).
If this was really an issue, it would correct itself. What we *should* be concerned about is if big tech companies bring foreign PhDs into the states to do their research, and I don't see that happening much, other than those that are in fact better and brighter than the American counterparts. Free market wins again.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
I probably wasn't taking enough time reading your post anyway, since I was in such a rush to rant.
You're right; western society (especially the USA) really *should* recognize the importance of scientists and engineers, but currently, it does not. I simply don't see this changing any time soon. Business is far too powerful here, and greed is all-consuming, so that businesses try to screw their employees as much as possible and keep all the profits for the owners or top execs. Other professions, such as doctors and lawyers, don't usually have this problem because in those fields, the practitioners also usually happen to own and run their own businesses. This is rarely the case with scientists and engineers: they usually work for a corporation.
I think this problem is more centered in the USA, too; I believe (but don't really have any proof to point to, maybe someone in other western countries can say something here) that in many other western countries, scientists and engineers are much more highly respected and treated better than they are here (such as in Germany).
One merely needs to look at the White House to find the answer to that question!
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
then spent a few weeks polishing up their war machine on Poland
And while they were "polishing up their war machine" on Poland, the French (and British) basically sat on their ass behind their fortified Magiot Line and did nothing to help their allies. Even though in 1939 the German military was not ready for war and the overwhelming majority of German forces were in Poland leaving the Western front completely exposed if the Allies had bothered to take the initiative to attack.
In fact for all the hooplah made about how quickly Poland was defeated, the Poles actually put up a pretty decent fight. For all the praise that Blitzkrieg gets the front in Poland basically turned into a siege of Warsaw. The Poles were screwed by "Allies" that were too afraid to help them and by the Soviet Union who invaded after the Germans had already engaged the bulk of the Polish Army.
Had the Allies (led by the French at that time) taken some initiative instead of ceding it to Germany then it's quite possible that Poland could have been saved. Think of how different history would have unfolded (no Cold War, no Holocaust, no fall of France) had the French shown the guts to take the offense.
You can make any number of excuses to justify the French behavior. The fact that they lost millions of men in WW1. The fact that most of the Allied military brass still believed in defensive warfare. But that doesn't change the perception that the French sat around and waited to be attacked.
You think Americans hate the French? The Poles have no lost love for them either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Oh, I forgot to shoot down a few of your other points in my last post. Allow me:
with the best weapons in the world when they turned on France
Actually, it's generally accepted that the French had better tanks. They just weren't forward enough thinkers to use them properly.
but they still fought against a vicious adversary until FORCED to surrender
Forced? The bulk of France was never invaded or occupied by the Germans. The Germans never touched their overseas empire. They didn't fight it out until the bitter end. They surrendered with Paris and most of the coast occupied. The interior of France was largely untouched. If Americans fought like that we would have surrendered when the British burned Washington.
To make matters worse after the French rolled over and surrendered a good number of them become active collaborators! The Vichy French Naval Forces stationed overseas (thus untouchable by the Germans) even refused to join their Allies in the fight against the Nazis. The British eventually had no choice but to destroy them to keep them from falling into the hands of the Germans. If that isn't French cowardice then I don't know what is.
Why don't you jizzbags ever call Japan sushi-eating surrender monkeys,
Because the Japanese fought until the bitter end and it took the combined blow of two atomic bombs and the intervention of the Russians to force them to surrender.
or the Germans spaetzle-eating suicide monkeys?
Actually the suicide monkeys part would be more appliable to the Japanese.... *duck* And see previous comment... the Germans fought until the bitter end. Germany was completely devastated. Tell me, was every major French city carpet bombed into oblivion when they surrendered?
Should the Vietnamese call us burger-chomping shrapnel-monkeys
I wouldn't blame them if they did ;)
It's even like this is unique to France. I've heard my fair share of jokes made at the expense of Italy because of their horrible performance during WW2. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that when the German ambassador told Churchill that the Axis had the Italians on their side, Churchill said "Good for you. We had them during the last war."
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
America was a part of the same treaties from WWI were we not?
We were part of the armistice that ended the war. But we weren't part an alliance with either the Allies or the Axis when WW2 broke out.
Were we not supposed to defend the same as Britan and France?
No, we were not. We were not part of any defensive agreement or alliance.
Just think we are making those same mistakes today. SDI? effective against small man deployed tactical nukes? how about bio agents poured into the water supply of a large city? I think not.
SDI is currently useless. It's beyond the scope of this discussion as to whether or not it should be researched more so that it wasn't useless. My two cents says that MAD worked quite well and we don't need to mess with that.
F-22? How many conventional aircraft can one defeat in a single sortie? I mean the cost is making us build MANY fewer than other nations will have in conventional, tried and trusted types. Will they stand up to the equivelent $ value of 80-90 era F-16s or MIGs? I think not. Not even if they are eventually perfected and combat ready, which is way behind schedule.
Umm??? I'm sorry but I'd disagree completely with you on this. The French stuck with "tried and true" designs and tactics -- look what it got them. As to whether or not the F-22 could stand up against an equal $ value of F-16s or MiGs? Most probably, yes it could. I recall a NATO simulation of the expected performance of various NATO types against the Su-37. The F-22 came out on top with an expected 12:1 kill ratio. It was followed by the Rafael (8:1), the Eurofighter (5:1), and the F-15 (0.8:1). Given that it is expected to perform that well against a modern fighter I would expect it to perform equally as well against 80s and 90s vintage technology.
That said, I'll leave it up to you to decide if investing billions of dollars into the F-22 when we are fighting terrorists on horseback is a good idea. Historically the United States has never fought a war without having air superiority -- which is the stated mission of the F-22. Despite that, at times it does feel like a nice big fat giveaway to the military-industrial complex.
The point is, the french were caught in a war they didnt plan for. And to be using that as a bludgeon to villify them is lame, and should have been played out a long damn time ago.
I wasn't vilifying them for anything. I was pointing out the reasons why many people (not just Americans) regard the French in this manner. And even if they didn't plan for the War (their own fault -- they had lots of warning) it doesn't excuse them for executing it so poorly when it finally arrived.
The time to have done something about the Nazis was when it was appearant that their "transport planes" and "airliners" were obviously made for the role of bomber and troop transports. We knew what they were up to then and did nothing, just like the french, british and almost any other nation you can name. It was well known that they were rearming and it was against the armistice treaty.
I don't think you can lay the blame for that on the United States though. We aren't the ones that ignored the warning signs across the border. We aren't the ones that backstabbed Czechoslovakia. We aren't the ones that let Poland down.
As for not invalidating your point, Um... Wasnt your point that France waited to enter the war until they were attacked?
No. France entered the war and then sat around and did nothing while Poland was crushed. If France didn't have any intention of fighting the Germans then they shouldn't have declared war on Germany. I would have had more respect for them as a neutral country that refused to get involved (like Belgium) then as somebody who makes an alliance and then does nothing while another member of that alliance is crushed. Picture the United States allowing the Soviet Union to roll over NATO and doing nothing about it but declaring war on a piece of paper and then not sending our troops to fight.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think you also need to look at what happens to PhDs AFTER they graduate. Where do they work? Do they stay in the same country they studied in? I think THAT'S the real measure. The funny part is, a lot of PhDs from India and China are being used in those very countries. About the quality of education, you'd be surprised at how good some universities in Asia are - some of them are ranked higher than well known US ones. The real thing to think about is that the talent that is being produced is being re-cycled in the same country. Both India and China's economies are booming, all because of the simple fact that their currencies are weaker than the dollar and living expenses are less - that's what makes out-sourcing practical. I am from India and yes, there was a time when the big thing to do was to go to the US and work there. Not any more. In fact, now the trend is to go study in the US or Australia and then to COME BACK because you have a MUCH higher standard of living to look forward to.
You can quote percentages, numbers and figures about PhD graduates and PhD graduations as a ratio of the population, but you do need to take into account what happens after they graduate and where they go. I feel that is a statistic that would have more meaning to a particular country or continent.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.