Slashdot Mirror


The Science Education Myth

xzvf writes "BusinessWeek says that you should not listen to the conventional wisdom. According to a new report, US schools are turning out more capable science and engineering grads than the job market can support. 'The authors of the report, the Urban Institute's Hal Salzman and Georgetown University professor Lindsay Lowell, show that math, science, and reading test scores at the primary and secondary level have increased over the past two decades, and U.S. students are now close to the top of international rankings. Perhaps just as surprising, the report finds that our education system actually produces more science and engineering graduates than the market demands.'"

40 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. Supply and Demand. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey, supply and demand. I'm kinda a freak because I went to school and just studied what interested me without regard to how I was going to apply it to getting a job, but most people I know checked salaries, and went for things where they thought they could make money.

    Additonally, once you get out in the field, you start getting a sense of what people make, and what you can do and would like to make, and if you figure you could make more money as an engineer, you go back to school and pick up the degree...None of this stuff is set in stone in high school, or even undergrad level college.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one here who remembers the glut of 30-somethings going back to school to get their CS degree in the 90's. If there is demand, people will try to fill that demand, because doing so will profit them personally. Conversely, people who try and fill a non-existent demand will be punished by the market, shuffled into a crappy job.

    And for the inevitable people who're going to say, "All the US demand for engineers is being filled by H1-B types" I say good! More engineers in this country means more engineering work has to come to this country, because that's where the engineers are, and that's where the work will be done best. More work for engineers means more demand for engineers, and more engineers with jobs HERE means countless other jobs will be created by the money they'll be spending. Would you rather they stayed where they are already, and brought the work to their country? We can afford to do that for running shoes, but if we start exporting tech industries, that's a bad thing.

    Using government funding to force produce a glut of science-types is silly. Better to use the money to kick off industries that require them, and let the rest take care of itself.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Supply and Demand. by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As far an engineering and tech types, I think I agree with you. However, I think that there is a certain segment of the science industry that really ought to be government sponsored (fundamental and long-range research that may not be carried out in private industry due to no apparent profit to motivate).

      On another note, I wish I'd been more like you as an undergrad. I managed a BS in physics, and have barely even cracked a physics book since then. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out what to do with myself in terms of a "career".

      --
      I'd rather be flying
    2. Re:Supply and Demand. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      See, I agree with that. It goes in line with the last line of my post...Let the government pour money into pure science, and release the results to us under an open license. I've got no problem with that; it's exactly the sort of thing the free market isn't good at funding, but which often turns out to have profit potential anyway. And it creates high end jobs, which is a win-win. Better to use tax money for something like that than fricking corn subsidies.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Supply and Demand. by king-manic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because central planning really really works. And because PARC didn't discover anything of use, and all those Intel and Microsoft research labs popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain don't exist, and the numerous research universities throughout the nation, with millions and billions of dollars in endowments, are really just studying not even string theory, but silly string.

      A private company creating some interesting things does not invalidate the argument that academia researches things that aren't profitable. It's a complete tangential straw man. To summarize all academic research into a bland sentence about a particular area of physics is deceitful. Industry is good at bridging the last gap between an idea and a product. usually things that are within 5 years of being useful. Academia is better at doing basic research, research with no immediate profitability, and research that industry simply doesn't have a desire to fund. Laser's, the computer, algorithms, genetics etc... were all at one time just random academic ideas with no profit in sight. Once it hit a certain point industry took up that research and made products out of them. Basics research is high risk, you get results but the results are rarely usable in a product. Thus governments usually fund it as Industry is often extremely risk adverse.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    4. Re:Supply and Demand. by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, I agree with that. It goes in line with the last line of my post...Let the government pour money into pure science, and release the results to us under an open license. I've got no problem with that; it's exactly the sort of thing the free market isn't good at funding, but which often turns out to have profit potential anyway. And it creates high end jobs, which is a win-win. Better to use tax money for something like that than fricking corn subsidies. I'm with you on that one. Either the government can give it all away freely (as in beer and linux) or they could do a short patent and cycle that money back into directly funding the labs, thus lowering the direct funding cost required from the general budget. Let private enterprise license the technology and bring it to market, let the public at large benefit.

      Conservatives will always say "Man, nothing stimulates the economy like a war." I'll amend that to be "Like a war that doesn't occur on your own soil." But there is a truth to that, massive government spending on goods, services and R&D will stimulate the hell out of an economy. But what if we didn't put it towards war? What if we said we're putting a WWII level of effort into developing a new green economy and fixing our infrastructure? That's a task easily the equal of WWII or the following Marshall Plan. That's investing in the future. What are we getting for pissing away $2.8 trillion in Iraq? Might as well gone to Vegas and had the mother of all parties, you'll have as much good to show for it.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:Supply and Demand. by shaka999 · · Score: 4, Informative

      People really need to quantify words like "reasonable" and "lots". What many tech people consider a "reasonable" wage actually puts them in the top 10%.

      Take a look at
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States

      This shows that 42% of people earn less than 25K a year.

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    6. Re:Supply and Demand. by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article says the US produces too many science and engineering grads than the market demands. What they forgot to include was "...that will work for less than $40K". Those MF'ers actually expect to get paid once they get their degrees.

      The only thing saving the US is the H1B program!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. The problems with their numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The math was done by US educated researchers using excel 2007.

  3. But no one is taking the graduates by ztransform · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have a problem. Management theory of late has tossed aside conventional wisdom of taking on graduates, training them within the organisation. Instead companies either contract out work, or seek only experienced "useful" staff. Trouble is those of us with experience are doing very well as the supply of other experienced individuals slows.

    Those doing MBAs.. please consider the benefits of graduate staff. Yes they cannot do anything useful the day they get out into the real world. But in the long run technology companies will need experience or end up paying dearly for it.

    A country cannot do badly by having too many educated people.

    1. Re:But no one is taking the graduates by art03 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll another layer to this. I'm a foreigner and the thing that strikes me most about the States is experience is more valued than a degree (to some degree). So if you want any job, while you are at school, look for internships or co-op opportunity to get a foot in the door. I've been telling every student that ask me about career advice to do that.

  4. Tests are getting easier by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was at university I was talking to an old engineering lecturer and he was complaining that they had to lessen the difficulty levels of the courses even more because students were getting dumber.

    It's not that scores are getting better, it's that the tests are getting easier. Also there is still a very high demand for genuinely smart people, but not so great science grads are being churned out at a higher rate than what is required.

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    1. Re:Tests are getting easier by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      No kidding. When I look how classes change in my field (CS) since the 60s, you have to wonder. Of course, a lot has changed since then and the focus moved away from hardware and keeping some huge machine alive to algorithm optimization, but one has to wonder.

      We now get CS masters who cannot tell a PE header from an ELF header, know next to nothing about assembler, and couldn't even build a simple board to power and run some programmable IC like an Atmel or PIC because they know jack about electronic engineering.

      We have some sort of watered down colleges here now that churn out "IT masters" in a 4 years fast breeder way. You will pass, somehow. I recently had the "joy" of sitting in an interview with a candidate who was the perfect example of what's wrong with those fast breeder tech schools. When I talk to someone with a masters in CS, I do expect him to know what happens when I do a

      pop ebx
      inc ebx
      push ebx
      retn

      I do at the very least expect him to start pondering. He just stared blankly at me, he has never even seen any assembler. Hello? How's this guy supposed to write a compiler? How is he going to debug assembly? PE header? What's a PE header?

      We're talking someone here who has a masters degree in CS. Not acc or bacc, where I could somehow at least excuse it. I'd question it, but it's excusable.

      That's why our grades get better. Not because people get smarter, we just dumb and water down the tests until the results are what we want. I'm fairly sure we'll soon see college who can't read hexadecimal. We already arrived where they can't add them anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Tests are getting easier by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. When I was in college, they were doing this even in the programming classes. For IT majors, they used to teach programming classes in C. After a some complaints that C was 'too hard' they decided to switch to (bleck!) Visual Basic. I understand that IT majors don't need programming at the same level as CS majors, but for cryin' out loud, programming in C is not that difficult for someone who's career choice is IT!

    3. Re:Tests are getting easier by Stradivarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did the students get dumber, or did his expectations go up over time?

      It's possible the lecturer has been in the field so long he doesn't remember how much a new engineer simply hasn't had the opportunity to learn.

      We sometimes see this phenomenon in industry when interviewing new college grads ... your interviewers are often engineers who have spent years in the field, and it's easy to forget just how much you didn't know when you were fresh out of college. So we tell them to try to look for someone who has solid fundamentals and is smart... if they're smart, they can learn the rest of what they need to know quickly. If they're not... you probably don't want them even if they do know a particularly technology X, Y, or Z.

      (Somewhere else in the thread someone was complaining about CS grads not knowing x86 assembly. Is that really a surprise? If they've done assembly for any architecture, and are reasonably intelligent as more CS grads probably are, they'll pick up x86 just fine. But to expect that they've been exposed to x86 assembly specifically seems a little unrealistic, especially given that most CS grads will never use any assembly language after graduation)

  5. Re:WHich market by Metaphorically · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's about the cheap market here. Relentlessly trumpeting that "we can't hire enough skilled talent" encourages more people to get a degree or enter that job market which increases the supply and drops the cost of acquiring talent. A more honest statement would be: "we can't hire enough skilled talent for the wages we want to pay."

    It's really no different from the claims in the hospitality and service industry that seek to keep employees there cheap.

    --
    more of the same on Twitter.
  6. really??? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it then that almost every recent college grad we get at the office tends to not understand high level math?

    Also their English is atrocious. It's like they teach in communication classes to talk like a street person. you do not submit a proposal to a customer with the words "plug up" when regarding their networking equipment...

    and I quote... " We will plug up your networking gear for performance." WTF??? this is a college grad!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:really??? by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      and I quote... " We will plug up your networking gear for performance." WTF??? this is a college grad! As long as they write it politely, as in "Yo, we will plug up your networking gear for performance, man", I suppose it's acceptable.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    2. Re:really??? by sammy+baby · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as they write it politely, as in "Yo, we will plug up your networking gear for performance, man", I suppose it's acceptable.


      I believe the correct usage in that case would be, "We will pimp out your networking gear," etc.

      Alternatively, one could use "trick out," "style," or "smack that bitch up."

      Werd.
    3. Re:really??? by Bamafan77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why is it then that almost every recent college grad we get at the office tends to not understand high level math?

      Also their English is atrocious."

      Here's an experiment you should try - increase the offered salary by 50%. You'll still get people who don't understand "high level math" and don't speak good English, but if you can sift through those, you'll find good people. Perhaps your offered salary is too low for what you want. I want a 2007 BMW 5 Series, but nobody wants to sell me one for $15k. There must be a shortage! :)
    4. Re:really??? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      [not understand high level math...their English is atrocious] Here's an experiment you should try - increase the offered salary by 50%.

      Pay more? That's like soooo 70's

    5. Re:really??? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the danger of being mod redundant (I've been rambling about it before), blame the schools and that "no child left behind" bullshit. When kids get to pass despite being far from passing, but they would ruin the average and the school is threatened to get their money taken away because of it, what will the school do? Close down due to a lack of funding or letting the moron get his degree despite better knowledge?

      You can't even say "only do it until X". Until when? Junior high? Then we'll have a lot of people with a junior degree, which is worthless because even their dog could get one. High school? Then you have worthless high school diploma. College? Then we get college ones worthy of being toilet paper.

      You can't hand out degrees like candy and then expect them to be recognized by the economy. If everything you have to do to get your college degree is to sit there and keep the chair from flying away, it becomes worthless.

      And that in turn is dangerous for the workforce and the economy. It means essentially that companies are better off hiring from abroad where there are schools whose degree actually means something, that foreign engineers are on average better (because out of 100 engineers, you have 100 people who actually know their stuff instead of 50, and 50 who just have a degree meaning jack), and that thus foreign technology and products are better.

      This will in the long run hurt the US economy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:really??? by ortholattice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The guy who graduated from a major technical university with a _masters degree_ in network engineering who couldn't tell me what the network and broadcast IPs were for a classless network? For example, 123.123.123.123/11....

      Right, and I once knew an electrical engineer with a PhD who didn't know the color code for resistors! The shame.

      Seriously, the purpose of a university education is to teach deep fundamental concepts, not trade skills. Now not knowing CIDR notation (RFC 1519) may be an arguable deficiency, but it is simply a notational device that may or may not be covered in the network theory courses he took, or may have been presented with an alternate notation (netmasks or even IP ranges).

      The important thing is, did he understand the concept of what CIDR notation means and represents, once it is explained? Similarly, it's more important for an EE to understand the concept of resistance than to know the color code. A soldering tech, OTOH, could have the color code down cold without having the slightest notion of how electricity works.

  7. No one's arguing... by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Funny

    that our schools are graduating enough competent scientists. The problem is that we're not graduating enough extraordinary scientists with an extensive patent portfolio willing to work for subsistence wages.

    Sheesh! I thought everybody knew that.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  8. The Downside by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Perhaps just as surprising, the report finds that our education system actually produces more science and engineering graduates than the market demands."

    Foreshadowing a critical shortage of French Lit. majors.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  9. freak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm kinda a freak because I went to school and just studied what interested me without regard to how I was going to apply it to getting a job

    A lot of people do that. It is actually quite common.

    I am inclined to think that this observation about having too many educated people suggests a couple of things:

    1) The oft-repeated corporate line that outsourcing is needed because American talent is unavailable is pure bunk (though we all knew this already).

    2) The government could use this as justification for a reduction in the amount of student loans/grants it gives out....but it won't because:

    3) The economic benefit of producing too many well-educated people is clear: we wind up with a lot of workers in the market who are burdened with bankruptcy-surviving student debts, thus making them desperate enough to work low-paying jobs for which they are very overqualified, much to the delight of their employers.

    1. Re:freak? by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Huh. And I got through school with minimal loans, and will have it paid off being less than 5 years out of school. Really, you're blaming other people for your bad decision with the degree you took, and the asinine amount of money you spent for it? You can get a good education for less than $30K, and that's all 4 years, especially if you have a part-time job at the time.

  10. Almighty Market by synonymous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Me almighty market no want more science, reading or math. Me almighty market no like servants knowing me wheels and function. Ummmmmmm, almighty market want more gum for fresh breath, for speaking more. Yes, bring almighty market chewing gum. Make it spearmint, sugarless. Clap Clap

  11. Where's the report? by djmurdoch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article describes it as "a new report by the Urban Institute" with authors are listed as "Hal Salzman" and "Lindsay Lowell", but there's no link, and nothing on the Urban Institute's web page.

  12. I'm sure this study comes as no surprise... by penguin_dance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that MOST of slashdotters working in tech have known this. It's all about the MONEY. Studies have shown time and time again that the reason businesses are bringing H1-Bs over here by the boatload is not about lack of qualified US graduates--it's about $$$. Only a couple of month's back the Programmer's Guild exposed a video that advertised a class on how to weed out qualified Americans so your company can employ cheaper H1-B workers.

    Unfortunately, as long as US workers don't see it happening in THEIR field (or are blissfully unaware), they do nothing. I'm afraid when Americans DO stand up, it will be too late.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  13. I like this article. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Particularly, it's discussion on the flaws of various studies.

    Often people boil things down to a single number, and then misinterprete what it means.

    The 'education' studies usually do things like compare US % of High School graduates going on to get a College degree with another country. Sounds like we are doing pretty bad, until you do a little bit more reasearch and find out that 85% of US citizens graduate high school, while only 30% of the other countries citizens get that far. Big surprise, there. They picked their richest and smartest 30% of the population and compared it to our "everyone except the worst 15%".

    Then there are studies that show things like "US has worst prenatal care records in the world". But they leave out the obviously imporant fact that it is almost entirely caused by teenage mothers. If you ignore teenage mothers, the US has one of the best prenatal care records in the world. Our problem is entirely in the fact that we treat pregnant teenagers like scum instead of doing our best to help them.

    You need to look beyond a single number, they are not helpfull.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  14. No shortage until salaries go up. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As the IEEE frequently points out, if there were a shortage of engineers, salaries would be going up.

  15. Reduced demand is the reason. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It could be true that U.S. educational system is turning out more science and engg grads that what the market wants. But that is probably not because we have suddenly turning out good quality engineers by the bucketfuls. It is just that the market is not demanding that many good quality engg grads now, because of out sourcing. When you get good quality engineers at fraction of the salary in India, Ireland, Israel and other countries, the demand slackens.

    It takes a while for the information feed back to the corporate honchos to percolate through. Engineer salaries alone can't be compared. For example in India, to support one engineer, you probably need 0.1 cook, 0.1 diesel mechanic, 0.05 secretaries, 0.333 peons/errand boys ... Most of what you get from the existing infrastructure in USA, like reliable grid electricity, commuting infrastructure, lunch provides, etc are all provided by the companies themselves. It is possible that at the present levels of productivity and infrastructure cost, it could be profitable to out source. But dollar is falling against euro, rupee etc. The salaries overseas are increasing at a faster rate. The breakeven point is quite close and the trend towards outsourcing is going to reverse. At that point, it is doubtful if we will have enough qualified engg grads.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  16. This may be true, but it doesn't matter by superwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All it says is that there is more top tier people being produced. Ok, it matters when it we engage in the h1b arguments. But it doesn't matter when it comes to the general education arguments. As long as an average joe graduating from HS can't do basic math, he can't be expected to adequately maneuver in the modern world. And yet he is. Of course, by "basic" I mean Euclidean Geometry and algebra of at least 2 variables. Here come's the torrent of anecdotal evidence of people doing just fine without it.... but a modern man without those skills is a tourist in his own life.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  17. The report fails to mention that... by MeditationSensation · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..while we are turning out more science students, all of them believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

  18. Anecdotal by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My wife is the Undergraduate Administrator for the EE department at a major University. Almost every one of her students gets job offers when they graduate. Some get the offers months BEFORE they graduate.

    This post is anecdotal of course, but so is yours. A lot of it depends on what field you are talking about. Enginners tend to get hired right out of school though.

    As a hiring manager in the IT field I've hired quite a few 'kids' right out of school. Did they need 're-education'? You betcha. Did they rapidly develop into valuable employees? Most of them, in time. Not all schools of management theory agree with your broad brush strokes.

  19. This is no mystery to me. by ahfoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "lack of skills" argument has always been bullshit. If anything, the majority of people are overqualified. Academic inflation is a massive problem. For every full-time Community College position there are literally hundreds, and in many areas thousands or even tens of thousands of applicants waiting in line. A Master's Degree is now about as common as a BA was in the sixties. Meanwhile access to knowledge has exploded even for those who don't pursue degree programs. Just watching 3D simulations on YouTube, you can learn more about biotechnology in a few days than most college students learned from an undergraduate degree a few decades ago. There is skill to go around.

    The lack of education argument is nothing but a smoke screen just as it always has been. It's just way of shifting the blame for poor employment prospects away from major corporations and the government policies they've landed in place through the aid of their Republicrat benefactors and onto the middle class.

    If you go back and watch Milton Friedman's series called "Free to Choose" you can see some choice examples of where this lie cum mantra originates. In episode three you'll see none other than a young Donald Rumsfeld talking about the new service based economy in which the emerging software industry is going to employ fifty percent of the population and he'll tell you how magically only the US will be able to participate in this market because only Americans can comprehend something so technically advanced as this newfangled software thing. Really an amazing performance. The shocking thing is that such a clearly moronic figure eventually made his way so far up the ladder of power.

    But of course the catch to this magical trickle down service economy voodoo was that we're going to need everybody to get re-educated to participate. If you can't do Powerpoint and Visio, how can you expect to reap the rewards of this magic new ago. And hence the argument persists to this day that all the laid off GM workers will get new jobs when they learn how to use Excel and do Word macros etc. Yeah fucking right.

    The problem with the economy is not a lack of education, it is a lack of leadership and a lack of responsibility on the part of the electorate that has bought into the greedy lies that will never benefit the majority of population.

  20. Re:Oh really by Tipa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps because our government doesn't pay for our education?

    At 10-20K per year, you can only go to school so long before you're too broke to continue.

  21. U.S. Schools are turning out more business majors by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't remember ever being told that [Engineering/IT/Business Management/Finance] education is only good in the [Engineering/IT/Business Management/Finance] field. Has this changed?

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  22. We need sci education for EVERYBODY by arete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't read TFA yet - this is /. after all.

    I have heard parent's point repeatedly - that we're making tests easier.

    I can attest that in recent years it has become administratively inappropriate to give negative comments to or flunk students, so we continually pass students who haven't really learned along to be with their peers. That they didn't really learn isn't THEIR fault, but until someone can figure out a way to teach them, moving them up to the next set of material isn't helping them at all.

    However, when I think about the impact of the trends I see, it isn't "there's no one left to do research" it's how big and poorly trained everybody else is.

    I'm consistently amazed by how they let anyone who ISN'T in a hard science/math program get away without really ever understanding anything about science or math. A huge number of people don't have enough backing in the scientific method to have a basic sense of what is or isn't a fact - even in simple real world cases they can physically deal with. (Like how to fix household items, how to tell if a circuit is blown, how to debug RCA connections to their TV, etc.) And don't have enough backing in math to convert measurement units or tell if they got the right change.

    The entire idea that anything could possibly have or not have empirical verification is lost on a very, very large number of people...

    And to be clear, while I think higher education ought to take some responsibility for ensuring that the graduates have at least a small degree of well roundedness, I think the main problem in US education is much, much earlier.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  23. Re:Government sponsored, uh, no. by DudeTheMath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [T]hese types of things go on for[e]ver and evolve into useless side items that burn up tax dollars and never complete the original goal. [emphasis added]

    True basic research doesn't have a goal. It has a question. If you already know your goal, you're not doing basic research.

    No, take the money and offer it as a prize. First two companies to do X get Y. ... The last thing we need is even more government involvement. It already stifles innovation.

    So (a) the government is setting the goal and (b) it's providing (some) funding on the back end rather than the front end. This is not research.

    Research is when a scientist has an interesting question, hypothesizes an answer, and then goes about trying to (frequently dis-)prove it. A typical grant proposal has to lay out those three items, with the last part (the experimental method) in some detail, including materials and timelines ("deadlines"). Most grants I know of are for specific time periods, and you're not going to get any kind of renewal without showing progress (one way or another).

    Often, one project will spawn many new questions ("uesless side items"), which should be the only "goal" of pure research. Each would, of course, require approval of a new grant application.

    --
    You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!