Slashdot Mirror


State of US Science Report Shows Disturbing Trends

coondoggie writes to mention that the National Science Board is concerned about certain indicators in the science and engineering fields for the United States. "For example, US schools continue to lag behind internationally in science and math education. On the other hand, the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies. The US also leads the world in patent development."

574 comments

  1. Sooo... by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...we spending the most money, on the dumbest researchers?

    1. Re:Sooo... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope. We're spending the most money on smart researchers hired (and sometimes better educated) from outside of the United States. It's just not economical to grow smart talent at home.

    2. Re:Sooo... by cozziewozzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...we spending the most money, on the dumbest researchers?


      Hardly, as many of the world's brightest researchers end up in the US.

      A more interesting question is how much all that patent business is increasing the costs of R&D in the US and the West in general. Because one of the unlucky consequences of patents is that once a wheel is patented, it has to be reinvented 20 times, carefully treading around the patent each time.
    3. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we spending the most money, on the dumbest researchers?

      Not at all. We just outsource it.
    4. Re:Sooo... by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, at least the US has the worlds most expensive research. Which may, perhaps, be due to the costs of having such a high number of patents.

      Nothing drives costs like lawyers.

    5. Re:Sooo... by clampolo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is bullshit. If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs?
      Why are people surprised noone wants to go into engineering in the US: stagnant wages, offshoring, age discrimination, long hours. It's a shitty way to waste $100k on an education.

    6. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US also leads the world in patent development LOL, do we even need to point out the flaw?
    7. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      because you are *throwing* money at them, compared to where they are from?

    8. Re:Sooo... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They come because there's a market here, and one that isn't being filled domestically. This is pretty simple economics.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Sooo... by clampolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's kind of my point. The market here is being filled domestically because it's a crappy career choice. When people were being paid well and treated well in the late 90's people were flocking to engineering. Now there are less and less engineering majors because people know they are much better off with a medical degree, law degree, or going into finance.

    10. Re:Sooo... by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs? They come here precisely because they are smart. As bad as the US government is in terms of taxation and economic policy it is still easier for a smart individual to get ahead in the United States than it is in many other parts of the world. Thus, in light of the higher pay, lower taxes, better recognition for intellectual accomplishments (i.e. bonus, raises, and promotions) it is easy to see why many smart people, particularly in medical research for example, choose to work in the United States, if possible, rather than remain in their native country where they will take a bath in taxes and generally receive less financial reward for their work. Does this answer your question?

      Why are people surprised noone wants to go into engineering in the US: stagnant wages, offshoring, age discrimination, long hours. Perhaps, but even so it is still better than many of the alternatives. I often hear the lament, particularly from new college graduates, that offshoring is killing their job opportunities or that their wages are stagnant and any number of other gripes with the possible exception of age discrimination. Personally, I think that these perceptions have more to do with the so called "praise generation" which was raised by their parents with statements like "you're special", "award for participation", and "it's not important what other people think, but only how you feel about yourself". Is it any wonder that we have raised a generation of young adults who have a highly inflated opinion of themselves with insatiable egos who think that the world is their oyster and should dance to their tune? Many of these praise generation youths are getting their first taste of the real world now and they are shocked with the realities of not making 100k right out of college, not having the luxury car and the fancy house, and generally not being the all important center of attention. All I can say is, "welcome to the first day of the rest of your life".
    11. Re:Sooo... by AZScotsman · · Score: 1

      You mean, like "Clicking text takes you to another page." or "Methods and apparatus for selecting a server to process a request" (the last one is real - US patent #7,320,131)

    12. Re:Sooo... by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      This isn't about being a "unique snowflake".

              This is about being able to make ends meet
      under meagre expectations due to the bite of
      student loans being such as they are. The cost
      of higher education continues to accelerate
      much faster than anything else. Meanwhile,
      American companies are eager to depress salaries
      or ship jobs offshore entirely.

              Which "great generation" had to worry about
      it's college educated classes being outsourced?

              Kids today aren't "spoiled". This isnt' about
      the "praise generation". This is about new
      challenges that the grousing senile old farts would
      be unable to deal with themselves.

              In many professions, it's quickly becoming
      economically unfeasable to even bother.

              This is reflected in things like "tort reform".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:Sooo... by definate · · Score: 1

      Can you direct me to the society for raping the word "definitely"?

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cripes, it feels like I'm reading off a Commodore 64. You don't have to hit return at the end of every line. This site generates line breaks automatically.

    15. Re:Sooo... by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think that these perceptions have more to do with the so called "praise generation" which was raised by their parents with statements like "you're special", "award for participation", and "it's not important what other people think, but only how you feel about yourself".


      I tend to agree with your assessment, though I would see the oposite treatment (beratement and low-self value) as being more detremental to an individual's future success.

      As with most things in life, the solution is probably some mix of the two poles. In other words, I suppose neither the Carrot nor the Stick work as well as the Carrot AND the Stick.

    16. Re:Sooo... by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      This is reflected in things like "tort reform".

      Maybe it's the senility, but I don't see the connection to tort reform.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    17. Re:Sooo... by thule · · Score: 1

      The cost
      of higher education continues to accelerate
      much faster than anything else.


      Well it doesn't help when the market keeps getting interfered with by well-meaning politicians that tell you that they can make education cheaper. When the government subsidizes higher education, it just causes the schools to increased their rates. Do away with the financial aide and the market will adjust.

      Many problems in the US could be solved by letting the market work. Of course, this answer doesn't help people get elected. Everyone seems to want to know how the politicians can help *them*. So we're probably going to get a more inefficient, less responsive medical system because politicians want to "help." Instead, we should be looking to detach health insurance from where you work so you can stay in the same risk pool. Then laws dealing with pre-existing conditions would be the exception and not the rule. Look what happened to the rates of high deductible insurance in Massachusetts after passing dumb laws.

      The market is starting to respond already. Some offices are not taking insurance anymore. They take cash only either all upfront (say $1,500-$2,400/year) or on a case by case basis. They're rates are clearly published so you can shop around. The insurance only kicks in when a major medical problem comes up.

      So, please, do not ask for the government "help" in education. Let's ask them to mind their own business. That's what freedom is all about.
    18. Re:Sooo... by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They come here precisely because they are smart. As bad as the US government is in terms of taxation and economic policy it is still easier for a smart individual to get ahead in the United States than it is in many other parts of the world. Taxation and economic policy is only a small part of it. A bigger part is that the U.S. still has the best research infrastructure in the world, and if you want to do state-of-the-art science, it is still where it's at. If you're in a scientific career, that's far more important to you than how much you'll pay in taxes.

      Flip through any professional scientific or engineering journal, and look at the names of the authors of the papers. You may see U.S. institutional affiliations, but the names will be from all over: Europe, China, India, etc. The U.S. benefits greatly from this influx of talent and brainpower, so let's not keep screwing it up by needlessly harrassing foreign scientists at the border just because we can. The de facto War on Science and Reason being waged by certain political elements in this country doesn't help much, either.
    19. Re:Sooo... by ahabswhale · · Score: 0

      They come here precisely because they are smart. As bad as the US government is in terms of taxation and economic policy it is still easier for a smart individual to get ahead in the United States than it is in many other parts of the world. Thus, in light of the higher pay, lower taxes, better recognition for intellectual accomplishments (i.e. bonus, raises, and promotions) it is easy to see why many smart people, particularly in medical research for example, choose to work in the United States, if possible, rather than remain in their native country where they will take a bath in taxes and generally receive less financial reward for their work. Does this answer your question? There are many countries that are much better tax-wise than the US and far less imposing on laws and ethics when it comes to medical research. So I would say, the only real reason they come here is that there are companies here spending the shitload of money required to do the research in the first place. Medical research is extremely expensive even if you factor out the salaries of the researchers.
      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    20. Re:Sooo... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Contemplate why many people claim that tort reform
      is necessary. If you are not senile, you will get
      the connection.

      It's all just basic economics in the end.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Sooo... by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Why are people surprised noone wants to go into engineering in the US: stagnant wages, offshoring, age discrimination, long hours. It's a shitty way to waste $100k on an education.

      I am a sample size of one, but...

      I've had a raise every year (for the past 5 years) of between 7% and 21% (making in the low 6 figures now). Nobody in this company of over 20,000 has had his or her job offshored. I was hired straight out of college...at the age of 42. I work 40 hours a week. Oh, and I went to a state university where tuition was a whopping $1500 a semester.

      I live and work in flyover country. Maybe that makes a difference.

    22. Re:Sooo... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs?

      I know what you mean but don't worry - the word is getting out about how you treat foreigners so soon we should be smart enough to know not to come to the US.

    23. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mostly, you sound like a bitter old person who has faced a lifetime of disappointments and wants to tear others down to the same level. I'm not even sure why I even feel the need to respond to you. I guess I've got issues to work through myself.

      Anyway, it's subtle but there's a contradiction in your characterization of new college graduates. On one hand, you claim that the new college graduates have been raised to feel good regardless of their accomplishments. On the other hand, you claim that colleges graduates feel bad because they are unable to achieve a high level of accomplishments.

      Now that I think about it, maybe the reason I feel compelled to respond to you is my perception that people like you are going to destroy the economic success of the USA and I'd rather not get taken down with you.

      The thing is, fairly recently I did some traveling in Indonesia. Indonesia is poor. Not only is Indonesia poor but, even if you're not poor, there are nowhere near the opportunities available in the USA. Why is that? Size, perhaps? No, Indonesia has just about the same population as the USA? Too much communism, perhaps? No, Indonesia has been aggressively capitalist for decades. They even had regular communist purges for while. Lack of rich people? No, Indonesia has plenty of rich people. The thing about Indonesia is that most people lack the resources to have the productive jobs that people have in the USA. Instead, they engage in economically inefficient activities like subsistence farming and street vending. The rich people in Indonesia don't give back to their community. They just keep it all for themselves.

      Let's look back at the USA in the decades following WWII. The USA did pretty well economically. But, guess what, the USA had a ridiculously high tax rate. Some income tax rates were as high as 90% and a wealthy couple typically had 75% of their wealth taxed to the government when they died. This allowed all kinds of government projects - the interstate highways, public education, the infrastructure of scientific research, even the military.

      What I see from people like you is an attempt to turn the USA into something like Indonesia. An attempt to create a country where there are a few extremely wealthy people at the top and where most everyone else lacks the resources to be anything other than subsistence farmers and street vendors. Sure, in countries like Indonesia the rich people can afford all kinds of servants (maids, cooks, drivers, massagers, etc.) but the question we in the USA need to be asking ourselves is not whether we'd like to live like the rich people in Indonesia but instead whether we'd like to live like the poor people in Indonesia - because that's where the vast majority of us are going to end up if the middle class in the USA gets squeezed out.

    24. Re:Sooo... by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps, but even so it is still better than many of the alternatives. I often hear the lament, particularly from new college graduates, that offshoring is killing their job opportunities or that their wages are stagnant and any number of other gripes with the possible exception of age discrimination.

      Everyone is talking about college graduates. If these belly-achers stopped and read the actual article, they would find their complaining was ill-founded except for the natural bitterness that comes with old age. None of the key indicators suggested that the abilities of college graduates have declined. The indicators suggest that the numbers of such graduates are not keeping pace with the rest of the world.

      This knee-jerk bashing of new college graduates and the irresponsible moderators who give these idiots a voice need to be stopped. Such attitudes and bias are likely part of the force that drives the US's decline in science. Get over your old age! I have.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    25. Re:Sooo... by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hardly think it is fair to look at the average student's comprehension of math and science and think it has any relationship to the best and brightest among us. There are plenty of home grown Americans in the top tiers of research and development, and they are just as smart as their foreign grown counterparts. I believe that the real trouble with the decline in general knowledge of math and science, is that it has led a large segment of society to lose sight of the value of research. There is a growing trend towards rejecting the recommendations of our top researchers, and instead trusting our gut feelings on things. This is a disturbing trend indeed, as placing our faith in feelings over facts is wrongheaded and dangerous. It doesn't matter how good we are at research if the majority of people choose to ignore the research.

    26. Re:Sooo... by Facetious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, I suspect, skipping college altogether. The ever increasing price of college just doesn't allow it to pay off like it used to.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    27. Re:Sooo... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      stagnant wages, offshoring, age discrimination, long hours. It's a shitty way to waste $100k on an education.

      So is blaming others for one's own lack of motivation.

      It's high time that college students start waking up to the fact that the perfect job probably isn't waiting for them to graduate.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    28. Re:Sooo... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

      Hardly, as many of the world's brightest researchers end up in the US.
      Yes. I agree. Researchers like Al Gore, Barbara Streisand and George Clooney. But not Tom Cruise. Even though he calls himself a Scientologist, I think he paid his way into the scientific community, unlike the others that earned their way with hard work.
    29. Re:Sooo... by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      I live and work in flyover country. Maybe that makes a difference.

      No, the difference is that you are an engineer. This doesn't happen in basic research.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    30. Re:Sooo... by tsa · · Score: 1

      The trend you describe has been going on in the Netherlands for the past twenty years or so. Education was the one subject that always could do with less money, according to the gouvernments we had. Now it's so bad that we have students and high school kids demonstrating for better education. Ph.D. students here are usually foreigners who learn a lot and invent (new) ways of doing certain (new) things. After their promotion they go back to their home country, leaving us with the bills and a thesis, which, even if it's very good, doesn't usually contain all the expertise you need to continue the research at the same level or do the trick that the student devised again without much trial and error.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    31. Re:Sooo... by Kostya · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Is it any wonder that we have raised a generation of young adults who have a highly inflated opinion of themselves with insatiable egos who think that the world is their oyster and should dance to their tune?


      Wow, I knew they were deluded, but to think they actually see the world as a dancing oyster ... wow, that's screwed up.
      --
      "Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
    32. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one identify an American name?

    33. Re:Sooo... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "As bad as the US government is in terms of taxation and economic policy it is still easier for a smart individual to get ahead in the United States than it is in many other parts of the world. Thus, in light of the higher pay, lower taxes, better recognition for intellectual accomplishments (i.e. bonus, raises, and promotions) it is easy to see why many smart people, particularly in medical research for example, choose to work in the United States..."

      Didn't you just contradict yourself here? You first deride the US taxation and economic policy, then explain that foreigners come to work here for the low taxes...and better bonuses, raises...etc. Which is it?

      While I'd prefer MUCH lower taxes here, we do in fact seem to have lower taxes than most of the world in many respects....so, what's wrong with that?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:Sooo... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hmm...well, another thing might be if the general populace wasn't stupid and put themselves into HUGE credit card debt, and otherwise living beyond their means.

      If parents worked lived within or slightly below their means, they could do as my folks did, and SAVE money for my college, so that I didn't have to take out loans and finish school with debt. If parents saved, and the kids saved (I was working soon as I was 16), and if you make good grades, between grants and scholastic awards and savings from all parties, you can go without a loan. You may not hit Harvard, but, I'd say most state public Universities will give you a great education too!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:Sooo... by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Contemplate why many people claim that tort reform is necessary. If you are not senile, you will get the connection.

      Okay, I'll take a stab at it. If tort reform is about limiting civil litigation and damage awards, then maybe you're saying it will benefit companies whose hiring and compensation practices might invite litigation? If that's what you meant, I think it represents a pretty narrow, biased view of tort reform.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    36. Re:Sooo... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "There are many countries that are much better tax-wise than the US"

      Like where?

      I thought most all other countries out there over taxed you to pay for all the social aid and public medical care....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit! 2 whole posts about the USA doing something right without 20 posts with "+5 insightful" smashing the USA about being the "great satan" or some other nonsense... I must have mistyped slashdot...

    38. Re:Sooo... by marshac · · Score: 3, Informative

      "it is still easier for a smart individual to get ahead in the United States than it is in many other parts of the world. "

      Hardly. This is what's known as "economic freedom". The US is currently ranked #5, right behind Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. Now, number five in the world isn't bad, but it's clearly not number one either.

    39. Re:Sooo... by ahabswhale · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of Europe. Places like Mexico (and most of the third world) have very low taxes, almost no environmental laws, and far weaker medical testing restrictions.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    40. Re:Sooo... by misleb · · Score: 1

      That's kind of my point. The market here is being filled domestically because it's a crappy career choice. When people were being paid well and treated well in the late 90's people were flocking to engineering. Now there are less and less engineering majors because people know they are much better off with a medical degree, law degree, or going into finance.


      I find it difficult to believe that those with a real aptitude for engineering are going into fields like finance or law as an alternative. The personality types and and natural skill sets are just so different. Although certainly there is a percentage of people who dont' really care what they do for a living and base their schooling primarily on the job market. The thing is that these people usually end up being merely "average" (or worse, incompetent) at what they do. The real talent... the people who were born to do a certain type of work... do what they love regardless of the job market. And they're good at it.

      I can't speak for engineering, but as far as IT goes, I must say that I'd really love it if the mediocre talent.. the people who majored in CS or got some certification because they heard IT was lucrative... would have chosen something else. Inevitably you'll have to work with these people and it sucks.

      Maybe US is getting it right. Maybe discouraging the mediocre talent from entering high tech fields is better than padding the ranks. Quality vs. quantity and all that. Let the people who don't have a natural draw to engineering go into finance, law, or whatever the career du jour is.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    41. Re:Sooo... by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Or you could just pay the patent royalties. I admit the current patent system may not be ideal, but imagine the disaster if we didn't have any patent system. What drug company would invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing a drug, only to have a rival company be able to produce a generic version and prevent the original company from recouping its development costs? Let's fight the bad patents, the ones that should never have been granted in the first place because the idea is too obvious. But let's not indict the entire patent system just because of the bad patents.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    42. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one identify an American name?
      They're fairly distinctive - look for names like "Sequoyah", "Hiawatha", "Pushmataha". Not to be confused with names of European immigrants like "Washington", "Lincoln", "Bush", etc.
    43. Re:Sooo... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd really love it if the mediocre talent...would have chosen something else.
      So long as it's not medicine, or law, or finance.
      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    44. Re:Sooo... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There are a few who will invest in computer science, engineering, physics, etc. no matter what the rewards are. They are driven. There aren't many.

      I wouldn't claim to be a brilliant programmer, but I am knowledgeable, capable, competent, careful, etc. I went into programming in the 1960's because it was the most profitable place to invest my skills in math. I could have gone into statistics (officially I did, but that's because statisticians were temporarily paid more than programmers. The work was programming, and neither I nor my bosses though otherwise.

      These days I don't know what I'd go into. It sure wouldn't be computers. Probably molecular biology or nanotechnology. There is probably a temporary surplus of jobs there. I'd likely be a technician rather than a researcher, because I'm not academically brilliant. (99th percentile doesn't rate when most people don't believe in evolution.)

      The right direction? Only if we want to become 3rd world, or possibly lower. In the last couple of decades we've started to lose the imported brain power. Used to be people would come here to work and arrange to stay. Now a sizable (and increasing) fraction head back home as soon as their contract is up.

      When countries rely on patents for their superiority it's evidence that they're living off of their past, not creating it in the present.

      P.S.: Looking over things, I realize I wasn't totally clear. I count myself as one of the ones who is driven. I needed to find a career in math or science. Many of those I went to school with were more brilliant, but not driven. They would have had no trouble choosing a different major if it had seemed more appropriate. Some of them did, but the rewards in tech were looking pretty good 40 years ago. Some of them mixed finance and tech, and would have been quite happy to drop the tech if it hadn't looked so promising. Many of the most higly skilled people AREN'T driven in any one particular area. They have a particular skill-set, and they look for places that they can apply it. If that place is finance, that's where they go. If it's France, or Japan, that's where they go.

      P.P.S.: This isn't a short term phenomenon. It's been happening for a long time to increasing degree. I expect the US to slip back to 2nd world status within a couple of decades, and to third not long afterwards. And it's because of our "leadership", and our "education" system. (If most people end up hating school, you know your country is going to be anti-intellectual. Our "education" system seems designed to cause both the brilliant and the sub-normal to hate it...which is more than half of the population.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    45. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't insert the line-breaks himself, he just didn't bother to remove them after pasting from wherever he copied the blog entry (his own? someone elses?) from.

    46. Re:Sooo... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your on to something here. I was reading once that for most people, if they put their college tuition into a savings account or some investments earning like 5% when they turn 20, by retirement they would have made more money then if they went to college and gotten a job in the fields of their study.

      This sort of shows the idea of the decreasing payout.

    47. Re:Sooo... by HardCase · · Score: 1

      But my message was in response to why nobody wants to be an engineer...I understand the problems with research.

    48. Re:Sooo... by Facetious · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right. I have done net present value analyses on this and I have to conclude that the value of college is way overstated and often negative. It really pisses me off because I have bachelor's and master's degrees. It was skills I learned in college that allowed me to demonstrate that college is not worth the cost. How's that for a juicy irony?

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    49. Re:Sooo... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Hardly, as many of the world's brightest researchers end up in the US.


      The US has an enormous concentration of capital, which goes to hire the best talent it can; its just cheaper, often, for that capital to pay to import that talent (including paying the cost of getting government to allow it to do that) than it would be for that capital to pay to develop it locally.
    50. Re:Sooo... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's easy: you look at the first name. If it's Bob or Jim or Billy, it's probably an American. It's harder when they use their birth certificate names, however (like Robert, James, or William), as they might be British.

    51. Re:Sooo... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The most important part is that if the majority of society doesn't see the value of science and research, and puts more value on faith, then they vote for politicians who agree with them. These politicians then, using their faith, realize that God is telling them to start a war, and the whole country is dragged into an expensive quagmire.

    52. Re:Sooo... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I think he means, "the taxation is bad, but not as bad as anywhere else". Just because it's better than anywhere else doesn't make it good, just less bad. Lesser of two (or many) evils.

    53. Re:Sooo... by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Let me see on one hand quality of life or on the other hand high revenue. On the one hand public health, social welfare and not worrying to much if the company goes broke on the other hand company goes broke, health insurance disappears and if you need expensive medical treatments your screwed. On the one hand relatively low crime statistics and a police force the respects the public and the other hand high crime with guns every where and a police force that demands respect from the public. On the one hand restrictive EPA and environmental conditions on the other hand you are a walking talking air and water purifier.

      You really wont to know when you are a success, it is when you are enjoying you current lifestyle and not being a jackass chasing some fore ever out of reach carrot. The Australian dream, own your own home, have good neighbours and enjoy a healthy and happy multicultural lifestyle. The US dream get rich at somebody else's expense and then flaunt it (well to be fair it is only the dream of a rather substantial greedy minority, unfortunately they seem to be controlling the country at the moment).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    54. Re:Sooo... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs?

      Err... The money?

      Maybe that report is on to something :/

    55. Re:Sooo... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      This discussion reminded me of this wired science video I saw yesterday. Talks about how in the late 40's early 50's there was said to be a chemistry set in every house where there was a child. Now many of the sets are considered to dangerous. I presume that some sort of regulation or the risk of being sued is involved here. The implications of this ought to be obvious.

      I agree with you that government should keep out of education. It seems to me that if state education systems had been around when the bill of rights was written, they may well have been mentioned in the first amendment along with state established religion. How can you be a free person if the government takes the major role in teaching you how to think?

    56. Re:Sooo... by wyohman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but even so it is still better than many of the alternatives. I often hear the lament, particularly from new college graduates, that offshoring is killing their job opportunities or that their wages are stagnant and any number of other gripes with the possible exception of age discrimination. Personally, I think that these perceptions have more to do with the so called "praise generation" which was raised by their parents with statements like "you're special", "award for participation", and "it's not important what other people think, but only how you feel about yourself". Is it any wonder that we have raised a generation of young adults who have a highly inflated opinion of themselves with insatiable egos who think that the world is their oyster and should dance to their tune? Many of these praise generation youths are getting their first taste of the real world now and they are shocked with the realities of not making 100k right out of college, not having the luxury car and the fancy house, and generally not being the all important center of attention. All I can say is, "welcome to the first day of the rest of your life".

      Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be. Your parents said the same of you and your children will say the same of theirs.

      For S&Gs, insert some other ridiculous, emotional, assinine reason about how either Americans are smarter than foreigners or vice versa.

      Cheers.

    57. Re:Sooo... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You'd rather mediocre engineers?

    58. Re:Sooo... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Uh, the OP didn't claim that the U.S. was #1. He said "easier than ... many other parts of the world", which I'd say is certainly accurate given the facts.

    59. Re:Sooo... by fast+penguin · · Score: 1

      What you say is not true at all. I don't know about income taxes, but I know a lot of countries have very high tariffs (I have read in some countries its so bad as to be almost 50% of the price of the good -- contrast that to the less than 5% for 1st world countries). They also pay stuff through inflation, so thats just a game of mirrors -- in Mexico, its so bad, there is a movement to push for a silver standard.

      They also have little regard for law enforcement (forget contracts, much less private property). There's also corrupted politiceans that will only pass buisness licenses to their friends -- a lot of times foreigns that pay them very well for natural resources or cheap labor. And those that are not corrupt, tend to have socialists views (see India and China a couple of decades ago).

      --
      My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
    60. Re:Sooo... by damburger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taxation and economic policy is only a small part of it. A bigger part is that the U.S. still has the best research infrastructure in the world, and if you want to do state-of-the-art science, it is still where it's at. If you're in a scientific career, that's far more important to you than how much you'll pay in taxes.

      Three words for you:

      Large.

      Hadron.

      Collider.

      Europe's latest and greatest particle accelerator will produce collisions with 14 times as much energy as the largest one in the US when it comes online in May. The US abandoned its plans to create a new collider, presumably when the government discovered you can't fry developing nations with that kind of particle beam. So, no, the US is not at the cutting edge in physics.

      Nothing kills a society faster than broken error correction mechanisms. If you continue to believe you are superior to the rest of the world in science, you will continue to slip behind in science.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    61. Re:Sooo... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If foreigners are so smart, why do they have to come to the US for jobs?

      Supply, demand and wages.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    62. Re:Sooo... by dmoynihan · · Score: 1

      OK, so the countries ahead of the U.S. (HK, Singapore, Australia and Ireland) on your list, have in their combined populations fewer persons than California.... and likely fewer opportunities.

      If you're in Dublin--and I love the Emerald Dragon--on a visa, and something goes wrong, you gotta do paperwork to move. If you're in Cal, and something goes wrong, you could try Boston, Research Triangle, DC-Bal-VA, and I'm sure Chicago/Cleveland/Birmingham/Minneapolis/St. Louis, etc.

      (Guessing, seems like there's biotech companies/research hospitals from all these areas... but mostly in Cal/Boston, of course.)

    63. Re:Sooo... by ahabswhale · · Score: 0

      Yes, what I said is SOOO untrue, that's why Ford is moving so many of its manufacturing plants down there. You need to do some research. Like most people on /., you have no idea what you're talking about. As for pushing for a silver standard...guess what, there's people pushing for us to go back to a gold/silver standard. Our currency has lost so much value that Canada's dollar is even worth more. Also, every bribe a company pays a government official in Mexico is a drop in the bucket to their costs here in the US. It's also extremely easy to get out of paying taxes there. Sorry but you just don't know jack shit.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  2. The engineering job meme hurts by Besna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When did we all conspire to repeat the meme that the engineering job market sucks? It goes beyond the usual issue--outsourcing(linked almost every time to India). There's the annoyance with people who haven't been putting together and programming computers since age 5. There's the frightening realization in the programming world that anyone can learn it anywhere. You don't grow your industry by discouraging newcomers. People who work with computers will expand the market. As we get more people into atheism and computing, the demand for those same people grows. Check out monster.com's tech board. Pessimists abounds there.

    1. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      The mechanical/aerospace engineering markets seems damn fine to me at the moment!

    2. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Well. Anyone can learn it anywhere. They don't even have to
      go to a university. Sometimes, if they don't it's actually
      better. However, just because someone has a convincing piece
      of paper and call themselves a programmer (or whatever) it
      doesn't mean that you want them any where near your code.

      It's not something that can be done well "merely as a job".
      It's also a field that will likely be hard to put up with
      if you view it as "just a job". In the end, the adjusted
      hourly rate may not even make any sense.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      As we get more people into atheism and computing, the demand for those same people grows.

      I'm sorry, "atheism"? What does that have to do with anything? I'm genuinely curious, did you mean a different word or was that some kind of subliminal message attempt?

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    4. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When did we all conspire to repeat the meme that the engineering job market sucks?
      I don't know, but I don't like it one bit. I remember when I had just graduated high school, and decided to go to into engineering I was thinking to myself "at least I'll get a job when I graduate". What do you know, at graduation I got a call for an interview. On graduation day, while at the ceremony no less I set up the interview for the job I have now. There will always be demand for engineers, and competition from overseas only helps.
      Contrary to all the mumbo jumbo about the US moving to a service economy, that isn't going to happen. We can't support our country by all doing each others laundry and making each other sandwiches. I think the first thing we need to fix is the rampant anti-intellectualism in our country. Since when did it become a Very Bad Thing to be educated? Its like we've decided as a society that its just too hard to compete in the global economy, so lets all just give up. I think thats just a tremendous load, and will do more to hurt us than help us. You know why the U.S. is such a dominant force in the global economy? Because were good at it. There are resourceful innovators here, in tech and in business. Now we are charged with developing the next generation of such innovators, and we are failing miserably. We have to ask ourselves, why?
      And more on point, how do we fix this?
      I don't believe that our education system is so broken as to be beyond repair. We need to fix it. We know we need to fix it. And B.S. standardized tests, No Child Left Behind, the laundry list of other federal and state crap isn't helping.
      You know what worked in the past might just work again. Maybe we should try another "space race" style program. There's nothing like a little healthy competition to get people pumped up about science education. Any ideas for what we could try this time? I don't think going back to the moon is gonna do it. I think we gotta get something new on the plate, and our little energy crisis might just be the problem to solve. We all know that global warming is going to be an issue, and we need to start curbing emissions just as soon as we can. So lets set a lofty goal, by 2050 lets cut the carbon footprint of the US by 1/2. Thats practically impossible. Were gonna have to get some wicked bad ass engineers on this one, and if we set this as a goal soon we might just see a push for more homegrown US engineers. This should put pressure on schools to improve science education, and students will be more engaged in science. Colleges would have more research money, especially in the basic sciences and engineering, allowing kids to get some more scholarship money so it might even be cheaper to become an engineer instead of a liberal arts major or finance grad (right now engineering is a little more expensive). Just a thought.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    5. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to all the mumbo jumbo about the US moving to a service economy, that isn't going to happen.

      You're an engineer, that's a service. Even though you might be counted as manufacturing if you're employed by a manufacturer, the engineering could be outsourced as a service.
      I'm an engineer in a consulting engineering firm. Our insurance provider makes sure to remind us that we provide a service, we don't make a product. (That's because product liability is absolute, but an engineer has only a duty for a reasonable standard of care as practiced by professionals in the field.)

    6. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, "atheism"? What does that have to do with anything?

      Athiests are smarter--they would be less likely to confuse the issues of religion and technology, as was done in the post that you are replying to.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    7. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

      That depends.. do these "atheists" you speak of believe in man-made global warming?

      Sure a lot of "traditional" religious people insist on having their religion explain a bit more than it can really handle, but the fundamentalist atheists are every bit as deluded as the bible-thumpers they love to denigrate.

      An inability to comprehend the validity of the arguments that define "atheism", "transhumanism", environmentalism", etc as religions cements one firmly in the "religious nutjob" community. And every community of religious nutjobs claims intellectual superiority over everyone else.. so how is it atheists are smarter again?

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    8. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by maxume · · Score: 1

      Cutting carbon emissions isn't really an engineering problem -- just shut down coal and fire up nuclear. It's be expensive as hell, but it would work just fine. Make practical electric tractors and you can push a bunch of transport fuel over to short cycle carbon, which cuts effective emissions. I guess throwing lots of engineering resources at it might allow you to do it a little cheaper, but there really isn't all that much to be gained on the efficiency front(maybe 20% or something), so mostly, you have to come up with a way to get people to use more expensive forms of energy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      you have to come up with a way to get people to use more expensive forms of energy.
      That may be something you could get to work in the US. But in the developing world they are investing in the cheapest energy they can get (usually coal, usually without any standards, and at least in China, in droves). The US really hasn't invested in nuclear for more than 35 years. Its not because its too expensive (we have no problem here in Colorado paying 10 cents / kW for wind), its because nuclear has a serious PR problem. I'm not talking about improving efficiency either. What I was trying to say was we need to develop new sources of energy, they need to be renewable, we need to make them cheap and they shouldn't be pumping out greenhouse gasses. Not for our use really, but so that we can sell these sorts of innovations to the developing world. Energy markets in China and India are exploding, and for a while at least they are going to continue that rapid growth. If we can tap into that need, and grow that market here, we will undoubtedly see a good return on investment. I say, we make that investment now. If we can make it work here first, the developing world will follow our lead.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    10. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      I realize this is a little OT (please don't mod me down, guys, this is important to my future! :P) but do you know anything about the job market for Electrical Engineering? I know I want to go into Engineering when I enter college (next year, senior in high school right now) but I'm not sure what discipline. The three I've been considering are, coincidentally, electrical, mechanical, and aerospace - they all sound like a lot of fun. Then there's a decision of what to dual-major in (as I'm pretty sure I want to)... Mathematics, Statistics, Political Science, Computer Science? Woe is me! I think they would all be INCREDIBLY fun and would go well with Engineering... except maybe PolySci wouldn't synergize very well...

      If anyone in the field/knowledgeable about the field has any advice, it would be very appreciated.

    11. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      Is the market good for all types of Engineering? I'm currently a senior in high school planning on going into Engineering but I'm not sure what discipline to choose... I think Aerospace, Mechanical and Electrical would all be fun and interesting but if one gives me a better chance of getting a job on graduation and a higher salary, well... when the primary variable is equal, the secondary variable is what determines my decision. ;)

      Also, how much does a dual-major matter in Engineering? I know I want to do so, but there's lots of fields that I am interested in and not sure which would be the best for Engineering (I'm considering Mathematics, Statistics, Computer Science, or PolySci [probably depends on the school that I end up going to, as some schools are more friendly to widely-varied dual majors than others]).

      If anyone else involved in the field has some advice, I would really appreciate it. It's crucial to my future! :)

    12. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism is simply the religion of scientists. As a true scientist, it should be clear that agnosticism is more correct since proving or disproving supernatural entities is not currently possible. So, please don't spread the word that atheism is the way, as it will make you a hypocrite for being so unscientific while calling yourself scientific. Instead, ignore religion and stick to what you know: spreading scientific ideas and letting them make up their own minds. Science isn't supposed to be a religion as you also seem to suggest; it's purely about asking questions and trying to answer them the best you can via tangible observations.

    13. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      its because nuclear has a serious PR problem.

      Yeah. It doesn't help that nuclear engineers have about three employers in the entire country to hire them, or that those employers are essentially just the commercial arms of nuclear weapons manufacturers. It seems to me that the only reason nuclear engineering university departments have survived at all is for maintainance of the weapons stockpile.

      (I just finished my interviewing process last fall. The nukes were very odd people even in the engineering market. I just couldn't imagine working 20 years on a design that was never made even once. Or sucking down half a billion dollars in government funding to do it.)

    14. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      Mechanical engineering is the oldest discipline and hence has the largest industrial establishment around it. MechE's can be hired pretty much anywhere in the country that there is manufacturing or design work. They can also feed into medical and law school (no kidding).

      Electrical engineering is also an old discipline and has lots of presence. I don't know enough to say much about EE except that is on the edge of what most manufacturing people consider "real" physical engineering, e.g. a lot of EE's are more into the logic gates of chip design (Verilog) than the physical medium of the chips themselves and hence they are close cousins to computer engineering.

      Chemical engineering (my major) is slightly younger than EE/MechE but represents the bridge between physics and chemistry and biology. Anything that involves a chemical transformation somewhere along the way is going to be a ChemE's job: oil and gas, chemical manufacturing (which is anything containing a liquid or made of plastic: how many items at a typical store have plastic in them or contain a liquid?), pharmaceuticals, and microchip fabrication. ChemE's can work in most places but not quite "everywhere" like MechE's.

      One piece of advice: it doesn't actually matter for any particular discipline whether you think the classes are "interesting" or not. When I was your age I looked through the college catalogs and thought, "ugh, why would I want to know so much about X?" and based my decisions on what looked "neat" to know. The truth is, getting good at something is how you _make_ it interesting. I expected that molecular modeling would be really neat when I got into this, turns out I like the thermo much more, but I can do either in my job and be satisfied. When you pick a major, decide on these things:

      1) What kinds of towns are the jobs in now? Would I like the kinds of houses / dating / lifestyle available in these kinds of towns?

      2) If I am hired someday and laid off later, would I need to move to a new town to find an equivalent job?

      3) What kinds of companies hire for this discipline? Is it just a handful of multinational corporations, or is it a lot of companies of varying sizes?

      What you want first is a discipline that lets you live in the kinds of town you want to live in, that lets you settle down if you want to and be able to switch jobs without having to completely uproot, and that has some flexibility in the kinds of companies you can work for. And BTW, mechanical, chemical, civil, and electrical engineering all do that. Biomedical, nuclear, and aerospace are a bit more limited (though aero's can often be hired where mechanicals are hired).

    15. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is very expensive, when you include the costs of building, maintaining, and decommissioning the plants.

    16. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      When you pick a major, decide on these things:

      1) What kinds of towns are the jobs in now? Would I like the kinds of houses / dating / lifestyle available in these kinds of towns?

      2) If I am hired someday and laid off later, would I need to move to a new town to find an equivalent job?

      3) What kinds of companies hire for this discipline? Is it just a handful of multinational corporations, or is it a lot of companies of varying sizes? Where would I find out about this sort of thing in the future? Is there one specific website that has a lot of info about this, or is it just accumulating whatever can be found from random Google searches? Though, from what you said, it sounds like two of the three that I was considering (Mechanical and Electrical) would be good choices and the third wouldn't be terrible. :)

      And thank you VERY much!
    17. Re:The engineering job meme hurts by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Read this from the department of labor, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

      Very insightful for any job industry you are getting into.

  3. Patenting Processes by Basehart · · Score: 1

    if I buy a copy of cold fusion and use it to set up a web based admin, production, scheduling system. Can someone come along and say the process we created is patented and that I can't use it?

    1. Re:Patenting Processes by frith01 · · Score: 1

      And thus you realize the problem with the current patent system as it is implemented today.

      Patents on SOFTWARE are like patenting 1 + 1 = 2.

    2. Re:Patenting Processes by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have a patent on 1+1= 2, please use the other method of 1+1 = 10, thank you.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Patenting Processes by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 0, Redundant

      it is in binary :P

  4. Patent Devlopment? by Serenissima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are we saying that Patent Trolling is the same thing as Developing?

    --
    Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Patent Devlopment? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Exactly, just because the same shit aren't accepted in other countries doesn't make the US the most developing and innovating nation. Thought you probably are anyway.

      To bad with the schools thought, I got the impression somewhere that us schools didn't learned as much "basics" but more advanced stuff because it seemed more beneficial or something? But I guess math and science should be among those more advanced things so it doesn't make that much sense. I can agree that history and religion and such crap are rather useless ;D

    2. Re:Patent Devlopment? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is an indication that the USA leads the world in the number of lawyers in employment, doesn't say much about the number of scientists.

    3. Re:Patent Devlopment? by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps.

      Over the past few decades, most US firms have found it beneficial to decouple development from manufacturing. Consequently, intellectual property rights must be respected and protected, in order to prevent the manufacturing firms from raping the R&D guys.

      In the current US economy, we do have a legitimate need for a good patent system given these circumstances. It also does have various other beneficial effects, as it makes it considerably easier for small/new companies to develop and market products that would otherwise require considerable infrastructure to manufacture.

      Whether or not the current patent system is good or not is another debate entirely, although I'm personally of the opinion that it needs to be seriously reformed to better balance the needs of the patent holders with consumers, cut down on the number of junk patents being filed, prevent exorbitant licensing fees, etc....

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:Patent Devlopment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your big government at work! Aren't you glad that somebody knows better how to spend your money than you do?

    5. Re:Patent Devlopment? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That is what is being done in some cases. Take medical reseach into artificial joints for an example. This has effectively been at a dead end in the USA for nearly two decades but there is a lot of activity making slight variants of a polymer, producing something with inferior properties to a radiation crosslinked polymer from the early 1960s but going ahead and patenting the thing anyway. These patents are fairly cheap to churn out but are utterly pointless for anything other than marketing reasons.

  5. free market needs competition by jgarra23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a natural cycle of markets. (or greed, or laziness or whatever...) now the US is resting on their laurels, reaping the benefits of engineers past and eventually will pay dearly economically for this culture's unwillingness to churn out better engineers.... and 70 years from now you'll probably see another surge of ingenuity and wonder in western-hemisphere technology.

    1. Re:free market needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't have to worry about it in 70 years.

    2. Re:free market needs competition by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Whomsoever modded the parent "Flamebait" needs to read http://www.phds.org/reading/elites.html .

    3. Re:free market needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, history shows that these things are cyclical. You can give in to religious fanatics and let the fear of God rule over science, because it only takes one or two generations to fix anything. Worked great for the Muslims.

    4. Re:free market needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and 70 years from now you'll probably see another surge of ingenuity and wonder in western-hemisphere technology.

      I wouldn't put money on it though. there has been nothing since the 70's

    5. Re:free market needs competition by jgarra23 · · Score: 1


      >and 70 years from now you'll probably see another surge of ingenuity and wonder in western-hemisphere technology.

      I wouldn't put money on it though. there has been nothing since the 70's

      We'll see (well, we won't!!). When you examine the technological progress of any culture, comparing & contrasting to the other cultures of any era there is a distinct ebb & flow of tides where one outshines the other for a while and the others copycat - then overtake the advancing leader for an even greater period. After a few cycles this is in turn proceeded by a dark age where all cultures meander along to let the social aspects of civilization learning how to mature with these technologies at which point there is a renaissance.

      I suspect that we are approaching another "dark age" though a minor one. Perhaps for the next century.

      We are infants compared to what we play with.

    6. Re:free market needs competition by XopherMV · · Score: 1

      I don't see this as greed or laziness at all. First off, this report starts off talking about grade school students. Yeah, our grade schools suck. But, our colleges and universities are ranked higher than any other nation. 18 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the US. That is why, as other people have pointed out, great scientists from other countries just "show up" in the US. They come here for the best education possible and then stay here after graduation.

      What I see is that there are too few jobs for math and science graduates. That means wages are shit. On top of that, you have business constantly lying about the state of the job market, which encourages more students into math and science, which makes wages decline even further. THAT is what is going on in the market today.

    7. Re:free market needs competition by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      I don't see this as greed or laziness at all. First off, this report starts off talking about grade school students. Yeah, our grade schools suck. But, our colleges and universities are ranked higher than any other nation. 18 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the US. That is why, as other people have pointed out, great scientists from other countries just "show up" in the US. They come here for the best education possible and then stay here after graduation. And one day they'll no longer need to come here for education because the schools back home are almost as good and the companies there are better. The ones who are already here will then be able to easily just go back home as well. The remaining people who can't easily leave (not citizens of some other country) will be given generous immigration offers from those countries so they can also leave. It's like the dot com bubble or a slow pyramid scheme, as long as people think it will work it does but when they stop the whole thing collapses spectacularly.

      If you don't have loyalty of your workers then those workers have no reason to not go to a better place the second chance they get.

      What I see is that there are too few jobs for math and science graduates. That means wages are shit. On top of that, you have business constantly lying about the state of the job market, which encourages more students into math and science, which makes wages decline even further. THAT is what is going on in the market today. The wages are great actually I think and the problem is that intelligent people don't go into math or science. You can make an order of magnitude more money by going into business or management. The stupid morons who then go into math and science of course burn out horridly but the intelligent graduates can make plenty of money. Wall street always pays top dollar, data mining is a massive field, statistics in general pays well and so on. If you want to do pure (or close to pure) research then the monetary prospects are dimmer but that's simply a result of the lower return on investment from pure research. That can probably be offset by patents and consulting so it may not be quite as bad as the base salaries indicate. Even then you can make passable money in academia or research labs, and to be honest if you go into pure research it's unlikely that money is your objective.
    8. Re:free market needs competition by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      That article makes two interesting points, one right, and one wrong.

      First, that the exponential growth of science cannot continue, is a good point, insofar as it's derivative of more and more of the world's population coming on-line, i.e. leaving the third world. So in a sense, the growth is like the exponential growth in use of a treatment for a serious disease, like a polio vaccine. For a few decades, the growth is exponential, until everybody is covered by it. Then it levels off and only grows as the population does.

      But he then makes the error of believing that scientific progress is primarily tied to government expenditures in science (not education, but paying for research directly.) While this may be true for a number of fields, that's hardly true overall. Things like electronics and chemistry still have trillions of private investment dollars driving them, in amounts far greater than any government spends in their wildest dreams.

      The point is that with x% of the population generating "new ideas and stuff", then the larger the population, the faster the stuff gets generated. Perhaps the period of rapid growth of this "population" (i.e. non-third world countries, in this aspect) is levelling off, but that won't "slow down" the development, just the growth of development.So no, this won't be exponential, but it will continue to get faster and faster as the population expands. Expands into relatively free societies, that is.

      I would fully expect 20 years from now for technology to be expanding even faster, and faster than that 100 years from now, even if it's more a linear extrapolation from now, rather than exponential.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:free market needs competition by admiralh · · Score: 1

      It's not simply "this culture's unwillingness to churn out better engineers".

      It's the fact that engineers and scientists are not rewarded for their work the same way that doctors (at least specialists), lawyers, and MBA's are.

      How many lawyers have to worry that they will be considered "too old" when the hit 40?

      How many MBA's see their career path end at a mid-level position when they are 30?

      Society simply cannot expect the best and brightest to take the engineering/scientist route when there's no support for the engineering/scientist to be a complete, fulfilling career.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    10. Re:free market needs competition by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      The summary is wrong. The US is actually still leading the world in tech, and the survey is generally positive (science and math scores are up, etc.) The downfall of US Education is that percentage-wise, we're training slightly less BSs than before, but with the rise of India and China, etc., it would be grossly unfair to say that we needed to keep up man-for-man with bachelor degrees...

      Of course, this being slashdot, all the modded-5 comments are all bitching about the downfall of technology... even though we spend by far and away more on R&D than any other country in the world, as the survey points out.

    11. Re:free market needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As America continues it's multi-cultural trend with more people from the third world, it is not surprising that the economy is transforming into a third world economy. It is only a matter of time before America becomes a third world country.

    12. Re:free market needs competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's OK, with that attitude I'm sure you'll find a job in the area of nuclear waste disposal.

    13. Re:free market needs competition by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      What was the great technological advancement that preceded the dark ages? Argiculture had been around for thousands of years, as had steel. I don't know that I'd say that an extended period of technological advancement preceded the dark ages. It's true that a lot of science and mathametics were developed before then, but it doesn't seem to have seen any lasting, unique, practical application. It is very possible the the same scientific advances were made before the times of the romans and the greeks and the egyptions, and that they simply did not lead to any lasting developments.

      I really don't see any "key" technologies being developed until the steam engine (the practical seam engine) was built. In fact, I don't know if I'd say that any key technologies have been developed since the steam engine. After all, electricity is only usefull to transmit the power generated by steam engines. Maybe the internal combustion engine, or the jet engine, but those are similar in function to the steam engine. Maybe information technology is a key tech, but I don't know if it's effect has been as dramatic as some other things (steel, the wheel, agriculture, steam engines).

      One thing's for sure, if we ever run out of fossil fuels, or stop burnging them, all the technological developments that have taken place in the last 200 years will disappear. Maybe someday we will be able to replace them with solar, but there isn't enough wind to replace them, nor is there enough uranium (unless maybe we use breeder reactors).

    14. Re:free market needs competition by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think I would urge my child not to even consider a career in science or engineering. The hard sci/engineering jobs are either going overseas or rotting away in universities, there will always be some, but the barriers are going higher. He's far better off studying hard to get in a brand-name school, getting a degree that sounds like tech, but also getting an MBA and some "field psychology", and preparing for a career in vendor management. He'll get farther, faster and make a buck.

      Basically, I agree with you, except that I think the far-east is going to go from being our cheap knaves, to providing the true innovation for the next 70 years while the western world gets to the point of a) recognizing there is a problem and then b) returning to what made us so rich and powerful in the first place. Right now, however, only those of us who actually like this geekdom care...and one might just say it's sour grapes.

    15. Re:free market needs competition by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiment that the relative intelligence of scientists could be increased, but I think it's a problem of too many not-quite-smart-enough people rather than a lack of intelligent people.

      If the wages for an intelligent scientist are best for that person NOT doing what they're trained in, doesn't that show that there are not enough jobs in that area? That says to me that there are either too many people being trained for the available science jobs, or the people on Wall Street are the morons (Isn't there anyone intelligent studying economics who can do some data mining? Why do they have to hire people who spent 10 years studying something else? Why can't they just teach some business students the same math we physicists learn?).

      The job application process for many scientific positions reflects the abundance of available labor. Most research jobs for a new PhD in my field are filled without advertisement. The way you apply for a job is to send your CV out to as many people as possible. Hopefully one of them will need to hire someone and will find your name in the stack of CVs which have been sent to them. I've heard this from scientists at Intel, in academia and at national labs. That does not sound like a field which is suffering from a lack of talent.

      You're right that most people following my career path are not in it for the money, but just to be really clear: the wages are shit. I have made a higher salary working as an unskilled construction worker than I have producing high level, practical research in a business friendly field. Now, I can greatly increase what I make after I finish my PhD research. That still means I may make less than I would have had I gone into teaching high school science. Postdoc salaries at Berkeley, for example, start at ~$31000, which is less than the ~$35000 starting salary for teachers in Oakland (which is also a more stable job, and carries better benefits). Does that mean that postdocs at Berkeley are dumber than Oakland teachers, or that there is more competition to be a postdoc at Berkeley than to teach in Oakland?

      I'm not talking about late career scientists, who may have lots of job opportunities, but the number of newly minted PhDs versus the number of available jobs for that group. To own your own patents or do side consulting at that point in your career is very unrealistic. The job market is such that you must give up your rights to such things at this level, or risk competing for private funding with less risky, more well established scientists.

      Despite all that, I would continue to make my current crap salary if it meant I could keep working on cutting edge research I like, and salary will probably not be a big factor for me in deciding where I work next. It's partially that kind of mindset which causes these problems.

  6. Patenting? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Patenting the obvious, since 1994" :-)

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  7. scientific elites by flynt · · Score: 1, Informative

    This article http://www.phds.org/reading/elites.html always seemed good to me. It's been 15 years since it has been written now.

  8. In other news... by Philotechnia · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a creationist museum in Texas is closing

    Mod US science +1!

    1. Re:In other news... by hazem · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the bottom of the summary points out the larger creationist museum in Kentucky is thriving.

      Mod US science -2

    2. Re:In other news... by Philotechnia · · Score: 1

      Ah, the irony of being flagged a troll for celebrating a triumph of science, albeit in a humorous way, in a thread mourning the decline of US science.

      I'm not trying to be a troll here, but if the original post makes me a troll, pour it on. I'm off to go shed a small tear now, seriously.

    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong article idiot.

    4. Re:In other news... by Philotechnia · · Score: 1

      Um, I think the point is that two articles/topics are related?

    5. Re:In other news... by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

      I think it speaks volumes about Slashdot when a post like this is modded a Troll.

    6. Re:In other news... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, the US education system has long been acknowledged as grotesquely poor in teaching critical thinking. Most people are of the level "If God didn't love the US, why did he write the Bible in English?", an old Johnny Carson joke, but applied to non-religious topics.

      To have so blindly missed the point beggars description.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      creationist museum is redundant.

  9. Lead the World in Patent development?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would think the US would want to keep quiet about what we are doing in the field of patents...

  10. Without reading TFA by lorenzino · · Score: 1

    What use of a phone call, if you can't talk ? As in, what use of patents, if particular Software ones, if its the only one using them?

  11. Good, now mentor by Besna · · Score: 1

    Talk to teenagers you know. I once did a presentation for a class about programming that was sponsored by my employer, Intel. Spread the word. Pessimists will be doing the same thing--you have to counteract them.

  12. Hypocrisy by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy that business leaders (Gates and company) complain about a lack of scientifically/technologically trained Americans, and thus we need to increase H1-B visas. These same leaders then turn around and support republican candidates who don't believe in evolution and want to water down the science curriculum by introducing Intelligent Design.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Hypocrisy by mustpax · · Score: 2, Informative

      For some reason I don't think corporations support republicans out of love for Intelligent Design. Let's see, not having to worry about antitrust cases probably ranks high on that list. (The current DoJ sure is tough on Microsoft.)

    2. Re:Hypocrisy by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy that business leaders (Gates and company) complain about a lack of scientifically/technologically trained Americans, and thus we need to increase H1-B visas. These same leaders then turn around and support republican candidates who don't believe in evolution and want to water down the science curriculum by introducing Intelligent Design.

      True, but those very same republicans are big business friendly, and few systems that fail are able to detect or admit that failure themselves, it usually takes an outside observer to say something first, which they either deny and fail, or accept and change.

      As for not believing in evolution, well thats a political stance designed to keep them in with the religious bods who provide a lot of funding. I seriously doubt an Atheist would get selected for high office. For a country where religion and state are seperate, there sure is a lot of religious posturing among your leaders.

    3. Re:Hypocrisy by Ren+Hoak · · Score: 1

      For a country where religion and state are seperate, there sure is a lot of religious posturing among your leaders. What country are you referring to? Surely it isn't the Gool Ole (Boys) U. S. of A. Oh, that thing you read in the Constitution? It means about as much as other constitutional ramblings such as right to privacy, etc.
    4. Re:Hypocrisy by sheepofblue · · Score: 1

      ...and all Democrats want to abort fetuses. Come on grow up. There is MUCH more to a party made up of individuals for BOTH sides. As stated some businesses tend to support Republicans because the majority are pro business, while government workers tend to support Democrats as they tend toward socialism. But all votes are an exercise in compromise as no one has positions in 100% agreement with yours (unless they are conning you). As to your anti-business tirade check the board at Apple, George Soros is a HUGE democrat supporter, and there is many more. John Kerry is married to Heinz (oh wait she no longer produces anything just living off the work of her ancestors).

    5. Re:Hypocrisy by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      This is what I came in here to say. There are those who say a candidate's view on evolution is irrelevant. But as you said, if they think that little of science, they have no business being president.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    6. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a single politician's stance on religion/science is responsible for the failure of our country's entire educational system? Wow, that was easy!

    7. Re:Hypocrisy by BadHaggis · · Score: 1

      It seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy that business leaders (Gates and company) complain about a lack of scientifically/technologically trained Americans, and thus we need to increase H1-B visas. These same leaders then turn around and support republican candidates who don't believe in evolution and want to water down the science curriculum by introducing Intelligent Design.

      While I can agree that the debate of which creation theory is taught in schools does have an impact on science curriculum there are larger factors at play.

      One of the largest factors in American is the requirement for Standardized Testing. While Standardized Testing ensures students learn a minimum set of information it also limits the teachers to teaching the minimum of what is on the test, just to be sure that students do well on the test. This type of teaching is no more than stating information and requiring the student to spout that same information back. There is no Standardized Testing to ensure that students have basic logic skills and can effectively reason through a problem.

      Additionally, I would consider teacher salaries as a primary factor. If you can't entice the people who are better suited for teaching and capable of teaching at a higher level into teaching then the students level of learning will suffer. People who want to teach and who are extremely proficient at it are being drawn away by higher paying jobs in the private sector.

      Why am I concerned about this..

      My kids are in Advance Placement classes and on a frequent basis come home frustrated because a teacher would rather argue with them than admit that something the teacher said was wrong and didn't want to be corrected by a student who had looked up the facts. When the students are more capable of research and fact finding than the teachers of advanced level courses there is a huge problem with the system. A problem who's roots lay deeper than whether Intelligent Design or Evolution is taught in science class. Students who have been taught to THINK and REASON instead of MEMORIZE FACTS are usually more than capable of making the ID/Evolution decision on their own.

      --
      Homo homini lupus
    8. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice, but how do you feel about the main point of the post you responded to? Do you think it's hypocritical for some business leaders to bemoan the lack of American talent in science while they support anti-science politicians?

    9. Re:Hypocrisy by DaveMrt19 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't. Here are Bill Gates' political contributions: http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_gates.asp 35% to democrats, 32% to republicans, rest to independents. Check your facts.

    10. Re:Hypocrisy by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      "There is no Standardized Testing to ensure that students have basic logic skills and can effectively reason through a problem." - this is false.

      The fundamentals of engineering exam is a standardized exam given throughout the United States to engineers (it's one of two exams you have to pass to become a licensed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, NCEES) It tests logic and problem solving ability.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    11. Re:Hypocrisy by omris · · Score: 1

      although i do not know anything about this test (i am a biology dork) i suspect that, like the MCATs which are supposed to be testing your critical thinking skills, the test assumes a basic understanding of some subject matter. probably a decent handle on math and physics, at least.

    12. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Although Republicans don't believe in some hot button science issues, that is not a significant factor. I find it more interesting that people making a lot of money from MBA degrees are telling us we need more scientists and engineers.

    13. Re:Hypocrisy by Viv · · Score: 1

      I took (and passed) the FE exam a couple years back.

      First part is the "generic" part of the exam. About half of it is math, about a quarter of it is physics, and a quarter of it is basic subject matter from the many engineering disciplines (electrical, computer, mechanical, chemical and industrial) -- by which I mean freshman/sophomore level classes.

      Second part varies, and you can elect which version you take. There is a more advanced "generic" version, or an engineering discipline specific version. The electrical engineering version I took included material from junior and senior level topics. My understanding is that the other versions are of similar difficulty.

      Each part is a half day long, with an hour break between parts.

      It is "open book" in the sense that they provide you a book with all of the fundamental formulae from the various disciplines, physics and math. You may use a simple scientific calculator that you may select from a published list -- which does not include the monsters like the TI-83/TI-86/TI-89.

      Based on the subject matter I've seen for the MCAT, it's similar to the MCAT, but it goes a little deeper into the covered subject matter. Mostly this is due to my perception that the MCAT material is usually learned in a freshman/sophomore level course, and the FE material is about half freshman/sophomore, quarter sophomore/junior, and a quarter junior/senior. (That said, I do readily admit that my perception on the MCAT could be wrong.)

    14. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I dislike the business practices of Microsoft as a company and Bill Gates as a person, I'm pretty sure he doesn't support Republican anti-science candidates.

      The same applies to most of the computer industry, but it isn't big enough to make a huge difference, despite its current prominence.

    15. Re:Hypocrisy by BadHaggis · · Score: 1

      While this may be true at the college level, high school and below standardized testing generally consists of.. Do you remember what you were told in class. Anyone who can get through the EE exams has my full respect. I know those are extremely difficult and it takes a talented individual to make through them.

      --
      Homo homini lupus
    16. Re:Hypocrisy by omris · · Score: 1

      i on the other hand, took the MCAT. it is four sections; Organic Science (biology and organic chemistry), Inorganic Science (physics and inorganic chem), Reading Comprehension (not as easy as it sounds) and Writing (two fairly involved essays).

      it basically assumes you have at minimum: one year of standard biology, one year of inorganic chem, one year of organic chem, one year of physics, and a college level ability to read and write.

      now, i went to a state school. not a great one, but not truly awful either. my experience was that those classes would barely touch on the material covered in the test. when they say it assumes you know organic chemistry, they mean if it was in your textbook you know it like the back of your hand. my trouble in this respect may have had a lot more to do with crappy schooling in my case. i opted for the 'teach it to myself out of the book' option before the test.

      assuming you know all of the material well, the test should sift out those who have the capacity to do well in medical school. they are looking for good critical thinking, good recall, and excellence under pressure. if you don't know the material, you'll score poorly even if you HAVE those qualities. assuming you know the material, only having those qualities allows you to score in the upper ranges.

      they don't have pass/fail levels for the MCATs, but i'm unsober enough to brag on the intertubes that i scored a 35. for reference, for the year i took my test, the average score of the students accepted at Tufts Medical School was about 31. that's right. i rock.

      but bragging aside, there is, as far as *I* know, no standardized test for critical thinking ability that works regardless of education.

  13. I don't get it... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, you mean in a nation where whole chunks of the population teach their kids that the world was created by an invisible sky daddy in six days isn't leading the pack in science education? We'd better pray harder!

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Kenrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The greatest challenge in education is the disintegration of two-parent families and strong communities. This is particularly pronounced in minority communities. The very occasional teaching of ID in public classrooms is probably not even a factor. But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it?

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    2. Re:I don't get it... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      sky daddy... that's awesome. Who's your sky daddy!

      --
      stuff |
    3. Re:I don't get it... by gardyloo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The very occasional teaching of ID in public classrooms is probably not even a factor.
      But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it? I doubt anyone would really argue that support from home is not a strong factor in a child's educational success. However, why not confront all the problems we can, including the mindset that comes along for the ride with ID?
    4. Re:I don't get it... by HungSoLow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that the parent / community plays an integral role in intellectual development. That being said, if a community does not place great importance on truth and consistently uses baseless arguments to critique well-founded theories in science (evolution, big bang, etc..) then why would any child in this environment that develops into an adult want a career in science?

      You're right, parents and strong communities are critical - but it's distortion of truth by said people that is the REAL problem.

    5. Re:I don't get it... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Pray harder that unfunny trolls are banned from teh intarweb?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:I don't get it... by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, is Pastafarianism any better......actually it is, never mind.

    7. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it?

      Yup. Everyone loves a good stereotype.
       
      Ever ask those who love to blame religion how it is that so many advances were made in the US during times when religion and religious influence were strong? It's fun to watch them backpedal and handwave - doubly so when you explain that the period (roughly mid 60's to mid 90's) when they weren't... are the exception, not the rule.
    8. Re:I don't get it... by Tsiangkun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The religious have been used as a pawn for the party of big business. Maybe if they voted in their communities best interests, and left religion in thier chruch and private homes, we wouldn't need both parents working 6 days a week.

    9. Re:I don't get it... by upside · · Score: 1

      I won't disagree, but consider that there are countries topping international comparisons that also have 40-50% divorce rates. I guess this has to do with more government support for single parents, meaning they don't have to work two jobs to maintain a decent standard of living.

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    10. Re:I don't get it... by UberOogie · · Score: 1
      The greatest challenge in education is the disintegration of two-parent families and strong communities.


      [Citation needed]


      This is particularly pronounced in minority communities. The very occasional teaching of ID in public classrooms is probably not even a factor. But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it?


      You mean the way the religious people confront the real problems such as who gets to marry who, eroding the separation of Church and state, and trying enforce certain morality through law?

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    11. Re:I don't get it... by Monsuco · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait, you mean in a nation where whole chunks of the population teach their kids that the world was created by an invisible sky daddy in six days isn't leading the pack in science education? We'd better pray harder!
      Putting your anti-religious bigotry aside I would like to point out that more than 90% of the world's population believes in a religion. This figure has remained pretty high all through world history, and science has continued. Any one who believes religion is blocking science has clearly paid more attention to the 1% of the time when it has instead of the 99% of the time it hasn't.
    12. Re:I don't get it... by rhakka · · Score: 1, Insightful

      wow, nice try.

      Religion has been omnipresent for most of human history. By that definition, nearly everything humans have ever done have been done "when religion and religious influence where strong". Including our greatest atrocities, the dark ages, pogroms, crusades, witch hunts, etc...

      However, the fact that the last 50 years has seen a diminishing influence of religion and also the greatest period of social and technology progress that humanity has ever seen, if you chose to be intellectually honest rather than extremely selective, would seem to indicate that perhaps religion and religious influence are not quite as helpful as you might seem to think. At best, you would be forced to conclude that it is irrelevant when considering its impact on progress, and more honestly you might have to conclude that it might actually be harmful to progress.

      But, keep clinging to that fantasy, troll.

    13. Re:I don't get it... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Rick Santorum called. He wants his platform back.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    14. Re:I don't get it... by tknn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is why countries like Finland, which has a higher divorce rate than the US, top the rankings? Stop pushing your "morality" based agenda without facts to back it up.

    15. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem with education is that we have an educational establishment so caught up in politically correct bullshit that they don't teach what they should teach.

      Not to mention their obsession with protecting useless lazy ass teachers from being shown the door.

      And lastly, this dumb ass notion that they are required to educate fucking gang bangers that would just a soon shoot you in the head as take a test.

    16. Re:I don't get it... by doktr+thunder · · Score: 1

      um, how about some sources since we've decided to be so scientifically minded :)

    17. Re:I don't get it... by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      As I take it, no one was kicking religious people. I read that as more of an indictment of our school boards and administrators developing policy based on popularity with the parents. If our children are being taught anything besides what's widely accepted in the scientific community etc., what hope do they really have? School boards are way too sensitive to popular opinion.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    18. Re:I don't get it... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Americans have always been pretty free to "do their own thing".

      The fact that Pennsylvania has the Amish doesn't prevent CMU from being effective.

      It's pretty trivial to see this on an electoral college map where
      the influence of the religiously gullible is easy to see. The states
      with all of the intellectual moxy are visibly quite apart from where
      all the hick fundie farmers are.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:I don't get it... by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that more than 90% of the world's population believes in a religion.
      I'm in that 90% then. I believe in religion. I believe many different religions exist. I just don't practice any of them.
    20. Re:I don't get it... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what popular intertubes culture suggests, there are very few religious institutions that actively attack established scientific theories. Certainly, they have their own points of view. But to say that the headline-grabbing fundy nutcases represents the prevailing attitude of all Christians is specious at best.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    21. Re:I don't get it... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I agree with you when you say the actual teaching of I.D. is not relevant. But what is relevant is the general scientific attitude behind the areas of the country where those things are being taught. The issue isn't I.D., but the fact that we are raising a generation of children who are not capable of making the distinction between science and religion. And this is a symptom of a generation of parents who have the same problem. So we are already one full generation into the cycle, and we now see the cycle continuing.

      It is terrible when I hear things like "Well, evolution is only a theory..." as though that meant something. Gravity is just a theory too but we teach that. And Creationism is not a theory at all. Not understanding the difference between fact, theory, and ideology is going to hurt these kids.

    22. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make me embarrassed to not believe in God.

    23. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know what America you grew up in, but in my part of America, I knew plenty of kids who were raised in single parent households and did just fine. "Strong communities" and "two-parent families" are and have always been myths perpetrated by religious and social organizations as tools to increase their power.

      Religious organizations benefit when everybody is dropping by on their pre-determined day and putting money in the collection plate. Their monetary power increases. Their social power increases too because maybe, just maybe some of those who attend will listen and follow the precepts and guidelines of that religion and support policies and causes that the church wants. One of the tools that these religious organizations use is the spiritual myth of marriage and the talking point that only sanctioned (who performs the weddings?) and married people are socially, spiritually, and monetarily qualified to have children. Hence the myth that two-parent households are better.

      Social organizations benefit from strong communities as well, but not in the same way as religious organizations. Social organizations, led by people who have a personal agenda, want members. Members are votes to them, and dues are more money in the coffers to fight for what the head of the organization wants. The more people they have listening to them, the more money they have coming in, and the more votes they can drum up to support their leader's personal agenda. These organization benefit from a strong, tightly knit community who all belong one or several of these organizations. It makes their power grab easier to pull off. Hence the myth that strong communities are better.

      Both of these systems are wide open to manipulation and are tools to control you. Education is to free you. These organizations are the opposite of that freedom. Their impact on education is the opposite of what you claim - they stifle personal freedom and destroy the environment of learning and education that they claim to promote.

      The real problems are lack of parental involvement in education and a culture controlled by religious and social organizations. Parental involvement is important, but the elimination of the influence of social organizations and mass media is just as important. Systems that cannot be thrown off as of yet because of the lack of intelligence and the complete indoctrination of these organizations values and norms into children as a result of public education.

    24. Re:I don't get it... by vortigern00 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's kinda like kicking a dog -- they don't understand and they just might turn around and bite you :)

      -Vort

    25. Re:I don't get it... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      That must be why science flourished in the Dark Ages, when the church had ultimate power, but then science halted during the Enlightenment, when it because acceptable to question religious dogma.

      Wait... am I misremembering that?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    26. Re:I don't get it... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      s/because/became/;

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    27. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking stupid. "Believing in" something is not the same as believing something exists.

      Please, go choke on a cock you mental midget.

    28. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't post often, but the fact that the above poster got modded up in any way makes me terribly sad for slashdot these days.

    29. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greatest challenge in education is the disintegration of two-parent families and strong communities.


      This is a subjective comment. Show us the hard data on this and not the fact that you are simply implying a correlation that may or may not even be there. I am sure many children from one-parent families exist that do quite well with their education that will beg to differ with you.


      ... and yes, pointing out that ID is ridiculous is a ton of fun. ;)

    30. Re:I don't get it... by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Relax, evolution is going to sort it all out.

      He probably wanted to kick only religious nut cases and not all religious people.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    31. Re:I don't get it... by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      The very occasional teaching of ID in public classrooms is probably not even a factor. But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it?
      But remember ID is a "genuine" "certified" "scientific" "theory", and has nothing to do with religion right? Isn't that the argument for putting it in schools?
      Everything else in your post is absolutely correct, why you felt the need to throw in the last little bit of flame confounds me.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    32. Re:I don't get it... by DCTooTall · · Score: 1

      But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it?


      But isn't that what we do in this country? Not deal with the real problem and instead find the easy scapegoat to blame for all the issues?

      "Society is too Violent! It must be the Video Games' Fault!" "Terrorists are attacking! It's all those crazy Islamic's Fault!" "The Economy is Faultering! It's all Bush's Fault" "Kids are having sex! It's all TV/Movies Fault!" "I can't get my Porn and movies fast enough! It's all the ISP Filtering's Fault!"

      ok... a bit extreme.. but you get the idea.
    33. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American religiosity has declined steadily, as has religiosity in many other parts of the world, especially Europe, for some time now. What I mean to say is that America was almost certainly more religious at its scientific peak, should you propose it to be in the early-20th century or some previous time, than it is now. So don't forget that a bunch of religious fanatics invented your TV, microwave, lightbulb, and all sorts of other neatoid stuff.

    34. Re:I don't get it... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Gravity is just a theory too but we teach that.

      No, it isn't. Gravity is a law, as in "this is what is known to happen". A theory would be something like loop quantum gravity (which I'm pretty sure we *don't* teach kids), that goes into what and why and how about parts we can't see and makes predictions about things we haven't seen yet.

    35. Re:I don't get it... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      However, the fact that the last 50 years has seen a diminishing influence of religion and also the greatest period of social and technology progress that humanity has ever seen

      Uhm, pretty much any 50 year period in the last 300 years or so could have been described (at the time) as the greatest period of technological progress that humanity has ever seen. Social progress, well, that's quite debatable, given that a lot of "social progress" is based entirely on subjective interpretation, which society you are referring to, which period in that society you are comparing which aspects to, etc.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    36. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greatest challenge in education is the disintegration of two-parent families and strong communities. This is particularly pronounced in minority communities. The very occasional teaching of ID in public classrooms is probably not even a factor. But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it?


      As is kicking those who point out problems that you think aren't important.

      The teaching of ID isn't the cause of the problem, however I do think it's a symptom of one aspect of it. There's no doubt that strong parental involvement, from both one-parent and two-parent families, would solve a large majority of the problem. Strong communities can assist with this and, to a point, overcome some of the problems from low parental involvement. Relying solely on the schools to be the source of our kids knowledge is asking for problems.

      The same goes for throwing critical thinking out the window. ID is not based on critical thinking, it's based on the belief (faith?) that life is just too diverse and too hard to have developed as described by evolution, therefore "someone" must have just created all the diversity we see. This sounds way too much like the telling of young girls that "math is hard". "I think it's too hard so therefore it must be."

      I believe that there's way too much in our educational system that marginalizes critical thinking in favor of the "believe as I say." Regardless of whether what is said is true or not unless our children develop their critical thinking to understand what is said we are in big trouble. Our national school system is focused more on pushing a "standard" than it is in teaching our children to question, understand, and learn.

      I'd much rather have a child who believes something incorrectly because they reasoned, experimented, researched and tried than a child who just soaks up "others" information as the truth. One of these children can learn, the other can memorize. You decide which is which and then which may be best for our future.
    37. Re:I don't get it... by coredog64 · · Score: 1
      You're asking for correlation when what you're throwing out would need correlation as well.

      Although I'm not the OP, I'll nod towards this, found via our (most/least) favorite search engine with less than 15 seconds of effort:

      http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html

      The research overwhelmingly demonstrates that parent involvement in children's learning is positively related to achievement. Further, the research shows that the more intensively parents are involved in their children's learning, the more beneficial are the achievement effects. This holds true for all types of parent involvement in children's learning and for all types and ages of students.


      To answer another poster (RE: Finland), here in the US, single parent families are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to being able
      to invest the time in their child's education. Work, commuting to work, making dinner, going grocery shopping, laundry, etc. all impinge on the
      time that a parent can involve themselves with their child's education.
    38. Re:I don't get it... by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      You hit it right on the head. The decline in test scores is a direct result of demographic changes. Why has the height of graduating high school seniors declined? Junk food? No there are now more Hispanics in the mix who tend to be shorter. The real story is that students tend to do about as well in school as their parents did. (Yes exceptions happen but we are talking about averages here.) and there has been a large influx of poorly educated parents.

      The people who get pushed here to the US to look for work are not Mexico's higher classes but mexico's least educated and most un-employable. Many did not complete even the 6th grade. Their children have a huge disadvantage in school and bring down the averages.

      If you look at the schools the best kids still do great work. Just like height. Adding short kids does bring down the average height but does not actually make the other tall kids shorter. Test scores work the same way those making low scores affect the average but do not bring down the scores of the best students.

    39. Re:I don't get it... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      You're right, it could. And the last 50 years saw religion weaken more than it ever had previously in history. and the progress was exponential in the last 50 years. Now, I would argue that progress is by its nature exponential and so I would not say that religion's waning influence caused it; I would, however, say religion is irrelevant to progress except when it is actively opposing it. One of the two conclusions I pointed to as reasonable, I might add.

      Social progress is subjective, but the world as a whole is more democractic than ever, slavery is less widespread than ever, civil rights are ON THE WHOLE better than they ever have been previously in history. That may technically be subjective, but I'm quite comfortable passing judgement on that as "progress", even if some bigoted jerks think that because we're not stoning gays to death we're doomed to an eternity swimming in a lake of fire. I'm not particularly concerned what such insane people think about what is and is not "progress". Sure, there are areas where these things are not true, but overall, across the globe, progress has been made.

      Now, I think that may reverse as population continues to increase, but that's the future, not the last 50 years... we'll see..

    40. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm an actual high school student, and I can tell you from years of observation that ID and religious based scientific teaching is *not* the reason that science education is on the downward spiral. In fact, it's decidedly a non-issue - such teachings have been unfairly criticized to such a degree that they are not even mentioned once in a normal school day in most places.

      The problems are many -

      (1) People just don't care anymore. Kids are getting lazier and lazier.
      (2) Increasing problems at home due to the destruction of the nuclear family structure.
      (3) A general lack of support and enthusiasm in education.
      (4) The educational system as a whole being a massive failure to begin with, for a multitude of reasons.
      (5) Destruction of morality and values - Cheating is becoming unbelievably prevalent.

      I bet it's fun to bash religion, seeing as you atheists have nothing better to do and have a complete lack of hope in general. but maybe you should bash something that actually deserves to be bashed in this instance.

      Religion is a NON-ISSUE in the degrading scientific education system in America. Period!

    41. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes that's exactly what we do in this country

    42. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop pushing your bullshit success stories of TINY SOCIALIST STATES. The USA has very little in common with Finland. If the USA tried to be a socialist nation like Finland it would collapse, much like if Finland tried to be like the USA it would collapse (such as allowing massive amounts of immigrants into its borders). Yeah, great country that helps the world... White Lutherans == Finland. Weeee!!!

    43. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Finland's single parent rate? Not all divorced couples have kids. And not all divorces happen when the kids are still in school (my parents divorced when I was 30).

    44. Re:I don't get it... by cuantar · · Score: 1

      My mother teaches elementary-age children in the media center, and she would agree with the GP. She tells me that the biggest problem she faces while trying to educate the children who are lagging behind is that they don't get enough support in the home. Single parents have much less time to devote to their kids than couples in general, and that's a FACT. There is no morality issue here; it's one of simple logistics. Most of the learning that happens in children occurs in the home, and as parents start to rely on schools to teach their kids *everything*, of course the kids don't do as well as those who had strong familial support.

      --
      Legalize it.
    45. Re:I don't get it... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Now, I would argue that progress is by its nature exponential and so I would not say that religion's waning influence caused it; I would, however, say religion is irrelevant to progress except when it is actively opposing it. One of the two conclusions I pointed to as reasonable, I might add.

      At best, you would be forced to conclude that it is irrelevant when considering its impact on progress, and more honestly you might have to conclude that it might actually be harmful to progress.


      Perhaps I misinterpreted; it seemed to me you were arguing that religion is harmful to progress. While I certainly wasn't trying to argue that religion somehow enhances progress, I do think, given the large number of religious people that have contributed greatly to science in the past that the obvious conclusion is that religion does not inherently hinder progress. The particularly nasty (and VOCAL) form of extremism popular these days does, but I suspect that is actually a minority of the people that would consider themselves religious. Maybe I am just an optimist.

      As for social progress, I was thinking more the last decade or so. I think you could find people that would argue social progress has gone backwards in many places (especially in terms of personal freedoms) during that period. I don't know, maybe if you could somehow take an average "freedom index" or something across the entire globe, it has steadily risen over the last 50 years. It just doesn't look like that from where I sit.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    46. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe god doesn't want 2 parent families and strong communities.
      After all he created the universe in six days he should be able to fix detroit

    47. Re:I don't get it... by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      Wait... am I misremembering that? Yes, maybe you should read up on it again.
    48. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ looks like someone has their period.

    49. Re:I don't get it... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "I agree that the parent / community plays an integral role in intellectual development. That being said, if a community does not place great importance on truth and consistently uses baseless arguments to critique well-founded theories in science (evolution, big bang, etc..) then why would any child in this environment that develops into an adult want a career in science?"

      There's this thing called *compartmentalization* which everyone does, which makes it quite irrelevant. Over the entire history of humanity the majority of scientists have been theistic, and whether their religious beliefs was more a function of IQ and logic, rather then the belief itself. Take catholics vs. Protestants, the pope's acceptance of evolution vs. Protestent YEC denouncement of it.

      The fact of the matter is religion/philosophy is deeply embedded in the psyche biologically and to think we'd get rid of it in a world of war, death, poverty and suffering is hopelessly naive.

      The fact of the matter is: Religious people out-breed secular ones at an enormous rate. One only has to look at the demographic trends to know that the enlightenment does not produce people who want to breed. Their emphasis on self and lack of responsibility.

      The fact of the matter is, the market itself, increasing competitiveness and the squeezing of the middle class has a lot to do with the decline in birthrates and the escapism to religion from the stress of work and life.

    50. Re:I don't get it... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Any one who believes religion is blocking science has clearly paid more attention to the 1% of the time when it has instead of the 99% of the time it hasn't.

      If you're just going to assert that without evidence, I can assert the opposite - 99% of the potential scientists for most of history got derailed by religion. Who knows how fast science could have developed if people had been taught to question, rather than obey, authority. If people hadn't been told that disease was caused by demons and God's curses, so prayer was the only answer. If the money for opulent temples had been spent on research. If the smartest and most educated people hadn't been pushed into being priests.

      If one ancient culture had torn themselves away from superstition, we could have had the Enlightenment thousands of years ago. It took 5000 years to get from wooden boats and riding horses bareback, to slightly better wooden boats and riding in saddles, all while the divine right of kings and religious explanations were virtually unopposed. Then in 2% of that time span, while civilization has been more secular, we've gone from the first real alternative to wind and muscle (steam) to nuclear submarines and spacecraft. To me, that says a lot.

      Now that I'm done with my rant, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that scientists are the least religious segment of our society? Doesn't that suggest that there's some correlation between a lack of religion and success in science?

    51. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in this country the emphasis is on making money fast and fame, not education. People would rather put their fate in the hands of a casino or a scratch ticket. Shows like American Idol appeal to the instant success mentality. People who value study and intellectualism are dismissed as "elites".

      Now if religion was the solution to our problems then Iran, Israel, and the Vatican should be leading the science pack.

    52. Re:I don't get it... by bitSmiter · · Score: 1

      Oh, come off it! Blaming our sci/tech problems on the religious is just plain silly. The greatest century of wealth creation and technological advancement in the history of the world was the 1800s. A time when our society was PROFOUNDLY more religious than it is now. Instead, most of our real problems can be traced to a society-wide lack of long-term thinking and investment. As a people, we've gotten too used to living in the now. So of course companies don't want to invest in long-term projects of real advancement. Because that won't drive up the stock price next quarter. Better to make a small change to an existing product and kick it out the door as quick as possible to maximize the numbers for the next quarterly report. That's why China is cleaning our clock right now. They think in terms of decades. Not quarters. They're quietly and steadily winning an economic battle that most of us can't even perceive. Because our collective attention span is too short to allow us to comprehend what's happening.

    53. Re:I don't get it... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      My writing certainly wasn't entirely clear. The smugly irrational theocrats rub me the wrong way very strongly, and so my statement wasn't as balanced as I'd like.

      I doubt progress is steady anyway. There is always a step back. But ultimately, I think MOST people are more free than they were 50 years ago. At least, most non-white people. Certainly chinese, japanese, and blacks in the west. The last decade seems a little darker though, sure. But not darker enough to outweigh civil rights and all that good stuff.

    54. Re:I don't get it... by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      Similarly, we know evolution happens.

      We observe evolution in model organisms when they aquire a change in function, or new phenotypes.

      We trace change of function to alteration of DNA sequences, either in their location in the genome or their sequence composition.

      Evolution is a fact. The theory is that evolution accounts for the variety of life on this planet.

    55. Re:I don't get it... by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      Any one who believes religion is blocking science has clearly paid more attention to the 1% of the time when it has instead of the 99% of the time it hasn't.
      Yeah, just like how the courts seem to pay more attention to the 1% of the time that the serial murderer was killing people, instead of the 99% of the time he wasn't.
    56. Re:I don't get it... by dsands1 · · Score: 1

      Where are you facts to back up Finland has a higher divorce rate than the US? I googled and could find stats pointing in both directions. Here's one for the US:

      US Divorce rate!

      --
      "What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
    57. Re:I don't get it... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      I'm most definitely anti-religion, no question, but why is it that when I mock religion, I'm a 'bigot' but when a religious person tries to convert me, or tells me how I'll burn in hell (in college an evangelical girl once said she could "smell Satan's brimstone" on me), they're just being devout?

      Oh, wait, because religion is a sweet, sensual melding of ancient superstition and modern jackassery, that's why.

      Incidentally, I don't really claim that religion alone holds back scientific progress, but there are plenty of reasons to bash it regardless.

    58. Re:I don't get it... by Kenrod · · Score: 1

      Finland has a much lower birth rate than the US, which means each child has much more invested in it than in cultures with higher birth rates. This is true in most of Europe and Japan. 20% of Finnish women do not have children, so the impact of divorce on children is going to be lower in a culture where there are fewer children. Also (not being an expert on Finland or Finnish family law) I don't know if it is culturally acceptable for a divorced father to be absent from their children's life. In the US it is very common.

      Also Finland also has a very small immigrant population, so the problem of cultural assimilation is not there. It is probably more difficult to teach math and science to immigrants who are not culturally assimilated and have little to no exposure to math and science in their native countries. The US has a large immigrant population, and of course it has a large population of historically un-assimilated and discriminated against people (blacks and native Americans).

      My "morality" based agenda is little more than common sense. Are you opposed to strong families and communities? You must not realize that civilization has depended on them for tens of thousands of years.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    59. Re:I don't get it... by Kenrod · · Score: 1

      These are very interesting comments. I can't address your prejudices against religion, I am rarely a defender of religion myself.

      But if education has disintegrated in the past, say, 50 years, then ask yourself this question: Is the influence of religion in our culture greater now than it was 50 years ago? I don't think anyone will answer this question "yes", and if they do, they are ignorant of history. School prayer and bible teaching in public schools were common 50 years ago. They are very rare now and usually warrant a lawsuit.

      Culturally, religion is probably at its lowest point of influence now.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    60. Re:I don't get it... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      1) Read Plato. People have always blamed kids for being lazy. Usually if they're lazy it's because there's no reward for not being lazy.

      2) The nuclear family itself was a part of the problem. The traditional family included grandparents, uncles, and aunts living in close proximity. In such a situation children has LOTS more support than they ever got from even an idealized nuclear family. Of course, it made moving around difficult. (I.e., there were reasons why the nuclear family evolved...but those same reasons cause it to dissolve into single parent households when both parents are employed by corporations that want the parents to move.)

      3) Yes.

      4) See 3. Also, the school of education at universities has fads in theory, but no feedback. This causes educational fashion to be disjoint from results. (Not totally...but with a several decade delay loop.)

      5) Read Plato on Socrates.

      Religion isn't a non-issue. Not when they adopt anti-scientific planks as a main part of their faith. But there are definitely other major problems.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    61. Re:I don't get it... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The two parent family is not a myth. It also wasn't always a happy environment. It was, however, a fact of life in the US up through the 1950's. Separation meant that neither parent could remarry. Divorce was usually possible, but very expensive. Over the course of the 1960's and early 1970's this changed. It's partially good and partially bad that it did, but there have been major costs to society in the change...and society has been ignoring those costs.

      I'm glad your experience was good, but don't presume that it's been universally the case. It hasn't.

      Also, be aware that the purpose of education is not really to inform you, but to control you. (It does inform you, but that's not the chief purpose.) Ideally you will internalize the controls and become a "good citizen". I'm not saying that it's bad (intrinsically, as opposed to in implementation), but don't deceive yourself about it's basic purpose. It's thanks to education that people can live together in cities without wholesale slaughter. (When it becomes impaired, violent crime rises.)

      N.B.: Other things also cause crime to rise. Good anonymous transportation systems, e.g. Think how e-mail fostered spam. (I'm not adopting a legalistic definition of crime, but an ethical one. Fraud is a crime even in contexts where there is no law against it.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    62. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Wouldn't the lowest point for Religion (at least Christianity in the Western world) have been the time between the Televangelist scandals of the late 80s and the release of the Left Behind(tm) books in the 90s

    63. Re:I don't get it... by Marsell · · Score: 1

      "Strong communities" and "two-parent families" are and have always been myths

      Ignoring the religious question altogether, I disagree that strong communities and families having a positive influence is a myth.

      I came from a single-parent home. My mother chose to invest everything she had in me, and as a result we were very poor; I love her for it though. However, many single parents make the opposite choice and go to work, leaving the children to their own devices. It's not an easy decision to make.

      The more people who are involved with the upbringing of a child, the less stress there is on any one individual. Larger and more distributed support structures make system-wide failure less likely.

    64. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationism isn't the problem. It's merely a scapegoat. It has been around for hundreds of years, and yet science education has still continued to advance. When you people wake up to this realization, perhaps we can fix the real problems with science education.

    65. Re:I don't get it... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I'm a 'bigot' but when a religious person tries to convert me, or tells me how I'll burn in hell (in college an evangelical girl once said she could "smell Satan's brimstone" on me), they're just being devout? That depends; do they say 'Yarg, yer gonna burn in Hell,' or do they quote a few scriptures and show genuine concern for you, regardless of whether or not you believe that you are in danger of eternal damnation, ect? There is a difference between the two; Brimstone girl seems to be the former type, but there are people who, regardless if you believe their concern is misplaced or not, honestly believe that you are in danger, and act accordingly. IMO, you're really only a bigot if you group them all together.
    66. Re:I don't get it... by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm also an actual high school student (senior in high school, currently) and I say that you're full of shit. I won't say that ID is the only reason, but it is certainly one. Heck, in my Biology class (two years ago) we didn't even talk about evolution for fear of "offending" someone (and we're not even in the more religious states!). We concentrated solely on the actuality of life (anatomy of animals and plants, etc.) with no focus on the how things ended up the way they did.

      (1) is plain wrong. Kids care as much or as little as they have in the past. If you don't believe me, ask your parents. As in the past, some kids care and some do not. The percentages of each have varied little.

      I have never seen any affect on my fellow students based on (2). In fact, there is a higher percentage of students living in divorced households in the AP classes that I am in than in the student body as a whole (55-70% of the students in my AP classes come from single-parent households, which is significantly higher than the national divorce rate).

      I'm going to assume in (3) that you are talking about the teachers - that's what it sounds like. That is going to vary so much from district to district, state to state, and region to region that it would be pretty difficult to make any generalization based on it. However, with the current rate that teachers are paid at, it would be hard to see someone doing it without being enthusiastic. Anecdotally, all the teachers at my school do it not for the money (obviously), but because it's important. One time my English teacher showed us a letter from a college friend of his that related back to something we were doing it in class. His friend had signed it "Keep fighting the good fight," and, when I asked my teacher what that was about, I was informed that he had wanted to do something to make a difference in the world - the reason that he got into teaching. If you're talking about support and enthusiasm among the general populace, then I agree - and declare you awful hypocritical.

      The main failure mentioned in (4) is due to a lack of funds - see below.

      (5) is completely and utterly ridiculous. Cheating is no more prevalent now than it was 50 years ago. Again, ask your parents before you open your mouth.

      (Note that I am not an atheist) To say that atheists have a "lack of hope" is utterly ridiculous. Simply because they do not believe in the afterlife does not mean that there is no hope. There is hope in improving the human condition - for themselves and others -, in improving their time on the Earth, and the length of it.

      Religion is a NON-ISSUE in the degrading scientific education system in America

      Ironic considering you tied the degradation of scientific education to the degradation of morals and then tied morals to religion. You, too, are claiming that religion is a part of the degradation of the education system. You are just arguing the opposite point - that it is the degradation of religion causing problems, rather than religion itself.

      The main problem contributing to the degradation of our education system is the lack of funds. The government (federal and state) is becoming increasingly unwilling to appropriate funds for education. It is reflecting itself in low pay for the teachers, bad facilities in the schools, increased class sizes, and fewer classes overall.

      To use anecdotal evidence again, in my chemistry class the school would not give us money to do labs so the teacher would spend her own money on chemicals, beakers, and other supplies. To support this, after a 9-hour day at school (7:00-3:00) and additional hours grading assignments, she worked part-time at a local store.

      The various classes get new textbooks once every five years or so, which is decent, though they are quite worn from having gone through at a minimum 10 pairs of hands (2 semesters * 5 years). What really suffers is the English department, though. They get new books once in a blue moon

    67. Re:I don't get it... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But if education has disintegrated in the past, say, 50 years, then ask yourself this question: Is the influence of religion in our culture greater now than it was 50 years ago? I don't think anyone will answer this question "yes", and if they do, they are ignorant of history. School prayer and bible teaching in public schools were common 50 years ago. They are very rare now and usually warrant a lawsuit.

      Culturally, religion is probably at its lowest point of influence now.


      I think you're ignorant of current politics in America. Religion is more influential than ever now, and the evangelical movement is stronger than ever, and continually growing. No, they haven't succeeded in getting religion back into public schools yet, but it's definitely headed that way.

      Back in those old days you refer to, religion had a certain place, and it was basically socially expected for people to attend church and be religious to a certain point. However, that was about it: Sundays were for church (which was more of a social event), and the rest of the time people led normal lives. People gave lip service to religion so that they weren't seen as weird, and most of them probably believed it to a certain extent, but most of them didn't spend all their time thinking about it. They didn't talk constantly about religion and their personal relationship with Jesus, they didn't worry that much about Creationism vs. Evolution, etc. Then, with the 60s and later, a large portion of the population fell away from religion (much as it has in Europe as well). However, unlike in Europe, here in the USA a large portion of the population experienced a backlash against this greater secularism all around them, so they headed strongly in the opposite direction, into religious fundamentalism.

      It seems to me like we're headed for a major fracture in American society; we saw it before with the blue states vs. the red states, and a lot of it is fundamentalist/evangelical religion vs. modern secular values. However, there's many other huge stresses on America in addition to that, such as uncontrolled illegal immigration and its consequent social changes and stresses, the devaluation of our currency and weakening of our economy, our involvement in foreign wars and other military engagements, and more. We're being pulled apart in all directions, and it's not going to end well. And with the way things are going with our Presidential primaries, it looks like the voters aren't smart enough to choose some better candidates for a change, even though most Americans admit we're in a lot of trouble and are headed the wrong direction.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see the USA break up into separate countries in the next decade or three, or to even see another civil war.

    68. Re:I don't get it... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with you in some ways but you can't wish or force better circumstances into existence.

  14. Look at the bright side. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    "For example, US schools continue to lag behind internationally in science and math education.

    But just think of all the intelligent design research positions that American kids will fill. ;-)

  15. No wonder.. by necro2607 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is going to sound really cynical, but I feel inclined to say: No wonder current tech is not forward-thinking and is only innovating at a "comfortable" pace. You know, the kind of pace that enables companies to really milk as much as they can out of products without having to do very much R&D to improve the tech.

    This is why we are still using countless seperate devices for our various everyday communication/information needs that can't communicate with each other, and why the concept of "integration" of the technological extensions of ourselves is largely overlooked. Oh, it's also why we pay $50+mo for, frankly, the most basic of cell phone and internet connectivity, for example. Companies that have the funds to do amazing R&D and amazing advances in the "human" aspects of technology aren't bothering, because they're rich as hell one way or another - they can crawl along at a comfortable pace with no problem (especially because "everyone else is doing it too").

    Yeah, a bit of a tangent there, but I've been thinking about this stuff a lot lately. You know, we 100% have the means for technology to be so much more, but it's as though no one cares.

    1. Re:No wonder.. by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're always welcome to start your own company to provide the devices and services you crave. With blackjack and hookers if you want.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:No wonder.. by antonymous · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not that no one cares. Technology is capable of doing some great things, but entrenched industries have no interest in undermining their existing business model. You know, the one they've spent billions of dollars to protect through politicians, patents, lawyers, etc.

      My prediction? We're not going to see true innovation until people outwardly reject the whole notion of legal-based market protection. Some non-US engineer is going to design a brilliant new cell phone and say "wait, I owe Qualcomm money? How about instead I just get these manufactured, ship them everywhere, and see if anyone buys them"

      The rule of law will be rejected if it does not serve the public interest and an alternative makes itself available.

    3. Re:No wonder.. by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      Until someone calls him out on some patent.

    4. Re:No wonder.. by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      This is why we are still using countless seperate devices for our various everyday communication/information needs that can't communicate with each other,

      clearly you have zero experience in the industry.

      do you know how difficult it is to drive a standard across an industry with literally thousands of players, when each one thinks they have the best solution?

      the problem is TOO MUCH innovation, not too little. technology improves faster than standards can keep pace, which is why there is a Cambrian (or Babel-like) explosion of somewhat connected devices.

      just look at the HD DVD standard war, and that is just two, maybe three players.

      plus, the perfect device doesn't just fall out of someone's ass and save the world. it requires an enormous amount of innovation and pure engineering labor, with constant twists in turns in planning and scheduling to bring a device to market. even if everyone agreed on the perfect comm standard, implementation variations would still bug devices for ages.

      even with the intense pace of innovation today, IMHO we're a good 20~30 years off from seamless, ubiquitous connectivity. maybe even more: just look at how long it has taken to climb out of the x86/DOS box, and that was the easy part.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    5. Re:No wonder.. by samkass · · Score: 1

      This is why we are still using countless seperate devices for our various everyday communication/information needs that can't communicate with each other

      Are you really new to technology? Compared to 10, 20, and 30 years ago, it's amazing as to what devices can communicate to each other. When I started college there was no WWW. When I started high school BBSes were still popular and no one had e-mail outside universities or the military. Heck, when 9600bps came around half the MODEMS couldn't even talk to each other. And before that, I couldn't upload data off the paper we used at ALL!

      The one thing I really think you CAN'T support is the arguement that our devices talk to each other worse than they used to.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:No wonder.. by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You probably meant this as a joke, but let's look at it seriously.

      To start a company means starting off on a basis that puts the system in place. You're dead before you started.

      We Need to Break the System.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    7. Re:No wonder.. by crotherm · · Score: 1

      You're always welcome to start your own company to provide the devices and services you crave. With blackjack and hookers if you want. In fact lets just skip the devices and services and go straight to blackjack and hookers.
      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    8. Re:No wonder.. by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      What would be really funny is if the patent involved the hookers.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    9. Re:No wonder.. by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      I think all of what you said was totally redundant. I'm already aware of all that, and so is everyone else here. I also hold the belief that it isn't neccesary for these things to be the case - they just are because they are. I'm saying, that is lame, and I'm trying to hold tech companies to higher expectations than simply making standard tech shit and making money.

      "do you know how difficult it is to drive a standard across an industry with literally thousands of players, when each one thinks they have the best solution?"

      It's pretty obvious.

      "plus, the perfect device doesn't just fall out of someone's ass and save the world. it requires an enormous amount of innovation and pure engineering labor, with constant twists in turns in planning and scheduling to bring a device to market."

      Hey, you're right. So what? Who didn't already know that - do you think I didn't? Here's the difference - I don't care. Those are just excuses to NOT be dedicated and driven and make your dreams and goals reality. Seriously, that's all you just said to me. Average people will read what you just said, and settle for what they have now, and never drive to do something better, or more amazing, or whatever.

      I know you and other people think "but this is reality, man". And trust me, I'm also very well aware of that, I experience the same kind of "reality checks" with shit like this, on a regular basis. The point is, you can overcome that. People can do amazing things. I'm saying, stop settling for less, and lowering your standards. Needless to say, I plan on doing some really awesome shit with my life, and I've already made some pretty huge progress towards that. What will you do, with an attitude/perspective like yours? Program embedded devices for some faceless corporation, or some similar triviality?

      The fact is, technology can be so much more, but it's not, because of that very "average" complacency and willingness to settle and be "comfortable" like I mentioned above. All of your response to my post reflects that. My perspective is that more people need to follow their goals and keep themselves driven to bring their greatest ideas to reality (and actually this applies to anyone, not just people in the tech industry).

    10. Re:No wonder.. by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Those are just excuses to NOT be dedicated and driven and make your dreams and goals reality.

      Either you are Steve Jobs, or a complete moron.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  16. whoever has the money attracts the brains by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    today, the usa is where you go when you want to turn your ideas into personal financial rewards. however, the usa can't rely upon this fact for long, as china will become the top dog soon in the $$$ department. and so the usa must indeed focus on nurturing it's own brainpower ...and watch them move to shanghai

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually look to europe first for the next big technology group. China is still only copying ideas.

      The first big sign of the downfall of the USA is when OPEC switches Oil from Dollars to Euros to make more money.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by eli+pabst · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I'm not sure how true that's going to be. How much innovation is coming out of China? Surprisingly little considering its population size. I think having relaxed IP laws have stifled that even further...why would you want to move to China with your new cool technology, if a competitor can simply copy it.

    3. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by Knara · · Score: 1

      Which won't happen because the US supplies a lot more than just dollars to Saudi Arabia (who sets the dollar == petrodollars standard, don't let anyone tell you otherwise). The US supports the House of Saud, and so long as we keep selling them $20B of arms to keep them in power, the USD is safe in that regard.

    4. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, more of this poster modding him or herself self up, as they are known to do. What is this besides blatant demagoguery, and how would anyone with any brains mod it up without at least more than a veneer of anything other than this opinionated spewage?

    5. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's not too surprising when you consider the economic position of the average Chinese worker. One doesn't get much innovation until one is at least "middle class" wealthy. (You've got to have disposable income and free time.)

      You also need a decent education. China is strong on this (well, for it's economic position). As the Chinese populace becomes more wealthy one should expect the rate of innovation to accelerate. OTOH, do remember that the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Chinese with moderate income won't be innovating in areas that have recently been plucked clean. (Wealthy ones may. They'll be able to afford the setup costs.)

      One thing that might come out of China is advancements in 3-D printing. That's an area that appears to be becoming accessible. And, of course, software. That doesn't require much up-front investment.

      But don't expect much until the size and wealth of the Chinese middle class increases.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Saudi arabia is only one country, Venezula, Iran and russia would do it to hurt the USA. In fact Iran could hurt us more not by building nuclear weapons but by selling oil for slightly lower amounts in euros. The trend will start somewhere and even if Saudi doesn't follow it will be enough.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:whoever has the money attracts the brains by Knara · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia has enough sway over OPEC that it won't happen unless Saudi Arabia says it will.

  17. Leading in patent development? by mu51c10rd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this truly a good thing. Are US patents even valid outside the US (ie international treaties that govern patents)? There seems to be a big difference between using R&D to come up with commercially-viable products and generating patents of ideas that may or may not be viable.

  18. anti-intellectualism by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is what happens when a culture has a profound anti-intellectual streak, and when those who epitomize dogma and religious faith start winning out in the court of public opinion over those who believe in science and empiricism.

    Consider:

    • creationism vs. evolution
    • abstinence-only sex education
    • the war on drugs, which emphasizes prohibition (based mostly on dogma) over harm reduction (based on empiricism--"what works")
    1. Re:anti-intellectualism by bcattwoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what happens when a culture has a profound anti-intellectual streak, and when those who epitomize dogma and religious faith start winning out in the court of public opinion over those who believe in science and empiricism. If anything the U.S. has gotten more and more secular as science and math education and achievement have declined. The religious have gotten more outspoken but really religion's influence over people's lives has gotten less and less. The current resurgence of religious sway probably has not helped, but the U.S. has been backsliding for a while now. I think that there are other cultural/socioeconomic factors at work here.
    2. Re:anti-intellectualism by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also consider....

      It's uncool to be smart.
      Black kids getting good grades are assaulted and told they are "acting white"
      Schools cut science programs but fund additional athletic programs.
      Society rewards and promotes the stupid jock and vilifies and puts down the smart geek.
      Media further promotes the above stereotypes and problems.

      THERE's the start of your problem. Kids are not smart because you are a dork for being smart. fix that and you fix almost everything else.

      BTW: this problem started in the 60's.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:anti-intellectualism by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, those are all good examples of the sort of anti-intellectualism I'm talking about. It goes way back, too. America's cultural heroes, at least as far as practical invention goes, are people like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison who lacked formal education and who succeeded by doing things contrary to the conventional and accepted wisdom of people who had formal education.

    4. Re:anti-intellectualism by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      the war on drugs, which emphasizes prohibition (based mostly on dogma) over harm reduction (based on empiricism--"what works")

      I don't like the war on drugs either, but you're totally mischaracterizing the issue here. The operating principle behind harm reduction is utilitarianism, not empiricism. Empiricism is in the realm of epistemology, utilitarianism is within the realm of ethics (and thus politics, to some extent).

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:anti-intellectualism by ProteusQ · · Score: 1

      The downward statistical trend in US education begins with the secularization of schools in the 60's. Also, creationists tend to home-school their children, and home-schooled children seem to outperform their peers in public school. (I say "seem" because there are some issues in regards to data collection.) So, your first bullet point doesn't hold H2O.

      I haven't received abstinence-only education, but I got the "safe sex" course taught the pro-prophylactic crowd; it seems to operate under the delusion that "you're gonna do it anyway" -- I guess it's a good thing they don't use that logic about murder, huh? "Johnny, if you're going to go for the jugular, make sure to sharpen your knife!" It's not unlike the pre-criminal reasoning that's helping to throttle American society (P2P, security at airports, tax laws, etc.) Maybe both sides have a screw loose, I don't know.

      As for the War on Drugs: it's too bad this book is out of print, but an excerpt can be found here. It details the most successful drug enforcement agency in the US... and it was killed by the FBI in order to start the War on Drugs. Let's face it, liberals won't be able to end the WOD without conservatives' help, and this book provides the reasons that conservatives would listen to.

    6. Re:anti-intellectualism by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Anti-intellectualism has been an attribute of American culture since colonial days. In Democracy In America, Alexis de Tocqueville states that whilst Europeans value erudition, Americans value wit and cleverness. Here is an exact quotation:

      Taken as a whole, literature in democratic ages can never present, as it does in the periods of aristocracy, an aspect of order, regularity, science, and art; its form, on the contrary, will ordinarily be slighted, sometimes despised. Style will frequently be fantastic, incorrect, over- burdened, and loose, almost always vehement and bold. Authors will aim at rapidity of execution more than at perfection of detail. Small productions will be more common than bulky books; there will be more wit than erudition, more imagination than profundity; and literary performances will bear marks of an untutored and rude vigor of thought, frequently of great variety and singular fecundity. The object of authors will be to astonish rather than to please, and to stir the passions more than to charm the taste. Keep in mind that the first edition was published in 1835, so this phenomenon is hardly new.
      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    7. Re:anti-intellectualism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Smart!=educated.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:anti-intellectualism by domatic · · Score: 1

      It goes back further than the Sixties. I believe it is a hangover from this country's early history. Way back when, the US had a primarily agriculture based economy centered on family farms. Time spent in school was heavily begrudged because those kids could have been working on the farm. Furthermore, we weren't a terribly literate country then either and "book larnin'" was of no help on unautomated farms operating on a sustenance basis.

      Unfortunately, aspects of the attitude persisted through industrialization and urbanization of the country. Cartoons from the forties and fifties had some nerd-bashing in them too and you can see American sterotypes towards educated people well before that.

      You're correct about one thing though: Other cultures don't have this attitude towards intelligence and education and will cheerfully eat our lunch for us. As Chris Rock put it, "'I'm keeping it reaaaaaaaalll!'"

      "Yeah!, Real dumb!"

    9. Re:anti-intellectualism by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      (As an aside, I wish Slashcode allowed one to edit his comments after submission....)
      What I was going to add: the 13 colonies were largely peopled by cast-offs, criminals, ruffians, people without means, &c. Lets not forget that it wasn't exactly Europe's leading lights who boarded rat-infested ships in those days, which it would be naive in the extreme to assume did not influence the burgeoning American culture.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    10. Re:anti-intellectualism by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Grrrrr......strike Lets and substitute Let's.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    11. Re:anti-intellectualism by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "the war on drugs, which emphasizes prohibition (based mostly on dogma) over harm reduction (based on empiricism--"what works")"

      While I agree that the "war on drugs" is an utter failure, I do question your assertion that "harm reduction" works.

      If you are talking drug *sales*, than the only harm reduction strategy would be to end the prohibition (which I'm for)

      If you are talking about drug *treatment*, then I think of methadone, and that hasn't exactly done a good job. In this case, what works IS "prohibition" or "abstinence" - it is very difficult to find an addict/alcoholic that can go back to being a casual user/social drinker.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    12. Re:anti-intellectualism by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1
      educated!=(competent && capable)


      Would someone else care to put the final link in this paradox? ;)

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    13. Re:anti-intellectualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would a car that has brakes that work 75% of the time be considered safe?
      If not, why is have sex with condoms safe?

    14. Re:anti-intellectualism by thule · · Score: 1

      Consider:

              * creationism vs. evolution
              * abstinence-only sex education


      Wow, you have just destroyed your argument. The big "prayer in school" fight happened around the 1960's which many considered the final act to get God out of public schools. Soon after that fight we have slowly slipped in our educational excellence. Then again, it may have absolutely nothing to do with either of those things. Maybe schools are worried too much about teaching things beyond the basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. Maybe schools are controlled too much by large organizations (politicians and unions). Maybe we need to introduce competition in our educational system to get things back on track.

      I would also like to point out that science, as we know it today, was developed by people that believed in a creator. Many were deeply religious. They believed that science was a way to pull back the curtain on the mind of God. It was a disciplined systematic way to explore creation. So, please stop being a bigot. People can be religious and have wonderful scientific mind that seeks to unlock the mysteries of the world we live in. History proves it.
    15. Re:anti-intellectualism by trosenbl · · Score: 1

      Society rewards and promotes the stupid jock and vilifies and puts down the smart geek.
      Media further promotes the above stereotypes and problems.


      I'd argue that *you* are promoting those stereotypes.

      NFL superstars, the darlings of the USA, make millions of dollars per year. And of course, that's nothing compared to the amount they make for sponsorship deals.

      But, that's just superstars. The mega mega superstars. Most athletes don't even come near this level.

      You say that society rewards the jock and puts down the geek. I'll ignore the fact that you're still using high school stereotypes (it's okay, I used to as well, even after I got out of high school), lets pretend we can easily break down the world into jock versus geek. I'd bet $20 that out of the top 25% wealthiest people in America, most of them make their money via mind, rather than muscle. Once you get out of high school, the whole playing field changes (get it! sports reference?!!). Geeks rule. CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, VP, Board Members, Entrepenuers, investment bankers, innovators, there's a ton of opportunity for brainpower. It's just not in the limelight. How often do you think about the OWNERS of these sports teams? The people that negotiate the deals? The people that design the stadiums?

      I've recently come to the understanding that it's fairly easy to convert brainpower into cash. Look at any list of richest people in an area. Muscle doesn't get you anywhere. Muscle is a cheap commodity, like tinfoil. Brainpower, education, and well-directed creativity are all rare and valuable. Brainpower -> cash.

      Now, I'm not going to disagree that if there were a better culture among the youth, there'd be even more mindpower produced. We (as a society) should work towards that. But don't forget the body-mind connection (that's a whole tangent I'd rather not go off to right now). I could easily argue that you are anti-athlete, the same way that you feel athletes are anti-intellectual. It's all about finding the balance between the two.
    16. Re:anti-intellectualism by DdJ · · Score: 1

      "Sales" are not "harm" in and of themselves. Even drug use is not "harm" in and of itself. "Harm" is an objective consequence you can point at that's actually pretty inarguably harmful.

      "Harm" is something like "huh, you know, IV drug users have a higher incidence of disease, and it's killing them".

      So for that specific example, a "harm reduction" program would be something like "let's run a needle exchange program". Does it reduce drug usage? Not very much directly, although they do couple the program with education, so it can a little bit. But it's definitely directly and repeatably observable that it reduces the harm from drug usage (ie. empiricism shows it works). And once the people aren't dying, you have more time to educate them.

      (Various co-workers of mine are involved in or have friends and relatives who are involved in running needle exchange programs and methadone clinics, so this is based on second- and third-hand "real life" information, not random factoids from teh interweb.)

    17. Re:anti-intellectualism by trosenbl · · Score: 1

      One thing I forgot to add.

      Muscle, brainpower, creativity, all these things. None of them mean anything unless they're powered by hard work. If you hustle, you can make nearly anything happen. But given an equal amount of hard work, I'd rather use the hard work to power my brain. My brain will last longer than my muscle.

      How many NFL stars are there over 40? How many engineers, scientists, businesspeople are still rising by the time most athletes are retiring?

      Don't believe the stereotypes. Jocks only have it good till they're about 25 (number pulled from my behind). Most jocks have to get old and be sad that the best years of their lives are behind them. But for a geek, we get to spend our whole lives making our brains better and more valuable. Our lives get better with time.

      Are you sure that the jocks have it so good?

    18. Re:anti-intellectualism by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know I'm going to get bashed for this.

      I've always wondered why our (American) heroes are steroidal, semi-moronic, sports people, or idiotic pretty Hollywood people. I was reading a book on 20th century French philosophy, and Foucault was treated like a rockstar, and Sartre had a parade for his funeral. Sure, these aren't scientific (per se) figures, but they are intellectuals. Ask the average American to identify ONE thinker?

      Looking at our universities, 80% of the people are entering them as a trade school, getting their fast-track MBA or such, and completely ignoring the fields irrelevant to making money (science, the humanities, history). They want money, they want a career, curiosity come second to that. Greed over knowledge. They want application, and not the ability to think of new things, a ready made body of knowledge is safe, all you need to do is follow the steps.

      The problem, in part, is greed. The odds of you getting rich as a public scientist (the most valuable and productive, in my eyes) is pretty slim.

      We want the status quo and wealth, not innovation. Hell science doesn't even fall into the other American value, ambition. Sure you can be determined to find x, but really, you might not. It's up to nature to decide, not you. Science is too humble for our tastes. As we can see by the rise of scientism preachers (Dawkins and co.), science needs to be sexier.

      We also are a country that venerates morons. Not to enter the realm of flamebait, but look what got Bush elected. Not his wit, or astute knowledge of foreign affairs, but his "folksy" ways of expression.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    19. Re:anti-intellectualism by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      All the other cultures started with farming too, if not hunting and gathering. I don't think the farming roots of the USA can fully explain this cultural trend of avoid academic recognition.

      I don't have any better theories though. I think sports in western culture may be related, but I can't even identify where it's a cause or effect(or both).

    20. Re:anti-intellectualism by nickptar · · Score: 1

      I'd bet $20 that out of the top 25% wealthiest people in America, most of them make their money via mind, rather than muscle.


      And I'd bet that most of them weren't geeks, but intelligent and popular people (and that many were athletes). The mainstream* social skills that translate into high-school popularity are useful later in life. It's also thought that your position in the social hierarchy in adolescence shapes your personality; the people on top in high school will on average be more assertive later in life. (Which makes the awful social environment in most schools even more harmful.) Even athleticism in and of itself might be helpful, if fit-looking people get more (unconscious) respect from e.g. bosses.

      * I'm not saying geeks don't have social skills, but that they have different social skills that allow them to fit in better with geeks than with non-geeks. Non-geeks would probably find themselves as marginalized in a mostly-geek group as geeks do in a 'normal' group.
    21. Re:anti-intellectualism by nickptar · · Score: 1

      I would also like to point out that science, as we know it today, was developed by people that believed in a creator. Many were deeply religious.
      At the time they lived, was it practical (intellectually or, more importantly, socially) to not believe?

      People can be religious and have wonderful scientific mind that seeks to unlock the mysteries of the world we live in.
      You can be religious and do good science, but I don't see how you can understand why science works and be religious
    22. Re:anti-intellectualism by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Also consider....

      It's uncool to be smart.


      If this was the problem in US science performance vs. other countries, you'd expect US students to report less interest in learning, and less perceived importance of, science. Studies of those perceptions (often, the same studies that show the low US performance in science, such as the 2006 PISA) don't show those resultsl; they show the US perceptions comparable to the norm across the OECD, despite the low performance.
    23. Re:anti-intellectualism by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      This is exactly it. It amazes me how much money high schools pour into their athletic programs for new uniforms and equipment every year while the band has to hold car washes, etc. just to keep the stuff they have in working order. bollocks.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    24. Re:anti-intellectualism by trosenbl · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I'm a fan of the body and mind connection that the Greeks seemed to be fond of. So many things in our world seem to be binary, and 0 ain't shit without the 1. Body isn't anything without the mind, and mind isn't anything without the body.

      If you self-identify as a jock, every time you go "huh, what's that" or "that doesn't make sense", you should ask someone smarter than you. Google for it, if you don't feel comfortable. Learn what wikipedia is.

      And for all the geeks who think that the previous advice is good, here's the other side of the binary coin:

      If you self-identify (lets assume most people are able to correctly group themselves) as a geek, you should get up every morning and run around your block once or twice. You'd be amazed at how much better your brain works during the day. Lift some weights. Learn to kick or throw a ball accurately. It improves cognitive skills. It increases the oxygen flow to your brain. If you can push yourself to run mile after mile, it makes it easy to step up and ask for raises or promotions.

    25. Re:anti-intellectualism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I happen to map smart==competent&&capable, because I think somebody with a high powered brain that can't actually DO anything isn't particularly useful. But that's just me.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    26. Re:anti-intellectualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I blame the lawyers.

      Why would I want to invent a great and inovative product only for some idiot to say 10 years later little billy used it wrong so now I owe him 10 billion?

      Nope.. I'd rather be billy.

    27. Re:anti-intellectualism by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      If you remove the prohibition on drugs, they will lose some of their appeal. Kids smoke weed and drink because they're not supposed to. Sure, getting wasted can be fun -- but people like to do things they're not supposed to do. If you grow up accustomed to having a beer after school or wine with dinner, you're probably not going to fail out of college for drinking and partying too much. Also, the profits from drug dealing are great. I think the US is missing out on a huge opportunity with marijuana. Imagine if it was taxed and sold like cigarettes. Or do you think there was lobbying and influence from the large tobacco producers around the time the government arbitrarily decided to demonize it. Seriously, alcohol is legal and weed isn't? WTF? I don't even smoke and I can see that. What the hell happened to this country?

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    28. Re:anti-intellectualism by omnifrog · · Score: 1

      It's no longer called "acting white."

      From the Freakinomics blog:

      Economist Roland Fryer has done research on "acting white," i.e. the phenomenon by which black children who excel academically are stigmatized by their peers.

      Recently, he was in a New York City school and asked some of the seventh graders he was talking to whether they had ever heard the phrase "acting white."

      The kids laughed at him and said, "Of course, but that's old school. Now it's called 'acting Asian.'"

    29. Re:anti-intellectualism by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      Then there's one middle road between greed and science: becoming an entrepreneur selling new, innovative products.

      Preferably in the green/eco area because the world really needs to change in that field.

    30. Re:anti-intellectualism by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      But our public school system is not designed to produce independent and critical thinkers. It's designed to produce consumers.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    31. Re:anti-intellectualism by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > They believed that science was a way to pull back the curtain on the mind of God.

      And like in the Wizard of Oz, they are surprised to find there isn't really a wizard behind the curtain.
      Unfortunately, also like in the Wizard of Oz, even after seeing the wizard has no magic they still expect him to somehow deliver miracles.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    32. Re:anti-intellectualism by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      how about... smart!=sexy

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    33. Re:anti-intellectualism by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      I agree, as did Mark Twain, but he said it better.

    34. Re:anti-intellectualism by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I think it a tad naive to imply that it was cool to be smart before the 1960s.

    35. Re:anti-intellectualism by Spudds · · Score: 1

      ... look what got Bush elected. Not his wit, or astute knowledge of foreign affairs, but his "folksy" ways of expression. Yeah it could have been that. Or it could have been corruption and voter fraud. Twice.
    36. Re:anti-intellectualism by thule · · Score: 1

      You can be religious and do good science, but I don't see how you can understand why science works and be religious


      Let us presume there is no creator. Why would you assume science works? Why would you assume you can believe what you mind is telling you? Why should there be consistency in the universe? You presume a logical universe because you have a logical mind. Your logical mind can test this universe. Why? It is circular logic. You have to do this because it is convenient for you to believe this.

      Let us presume a creator. Let's assume the creator described themselves to be consistent, logical, and just. We can know this not based on ourselves, but revelation outside of ourselves. In other words, we don't depend on our own for this basic revelation. That creates circular logic. From this outside revelation we could assume the physical world also has rules. Rules that we can test and predict. So, therefore, it can be completely consistent to do science and believe in a logical creator.

      Not all religions describe a creator in these terms. I do think that the Christian God is described this way. Something that happens outside of the rules of science is so rare, Christians have a name for it: miracle.

      You may not agree with the line of thinking, but it does conform to a logical world view. You might believe it is not logical to believe in a creator. That's okay with me. Just don't go around saying that people that do believe in a creator do not have a reason to do science.
    37. Re:anti-intellectualism by thule · · Score: 1

      And like in the Wizard of Oz, they are surprised to find there isn't really a wizard behind the curtain.
      Unfortunately, also like in the Wizard of Oz, even after seeing the wizard has no magic they still expect him to somehow deliver miracles.


      To the contrary, there exists many scientists that are agnostic because of their experience in exploring the physical world. Some even go as far as ruling out atheism. I am not saying they are religious people, by any measure, only that they believe that something must have started this whole thing we call the physical universe.
    38. Re:anti-intellectualism by SixAndFiftyThree · · Score: 1
      When I was growing up in England in the 1960s and '70s, the influence of religion was slight (having a state-sponsored church will do that, you know) but anti-intellectualism was strong: I remember the other kids saying things like "I do dislike walking computers" when they knew I could hear them. Why does the country that produced Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, and led the Industrial Revolution, feel this way? I trace it to complacency. Back in the late nineteenth century, a feeling developed that "We already rule the world, so there's no need to get any better." It would not surprise me if many USAans feel the same way deep down in their bones. Why is that boy being so intelligent? Can't he just have some good clean fun with the rest of us?

      People also get a bit nervous when they see someone who looks as if s/he is going to rise rapidly up the class ladder. Either someone who was your equal is soon going to be your superior, or someone who was your inferior is soon going to be your equal -- both are uncomfortable prospects and it's tempting to try and pre-empt them. What? You say you have no class ladder in the USA? Bwahahahaaaa! I bet you even have some of our aristocratic disdain for people who get their hands dirty with practical things.

    39. Re:anti-intellectualism by Mark+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Of course, the ability to cite de Tocqueville is an example of erudition.

    40. Re:anti-intellectualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would a car without brakes be any safer? You could just 'abstain' from driving too fast.

      The better brakes (condoms) you have, the safer you'll be.

    41. Re:anti-intellectualism by the_y_the · · Score: 1

      I'll boil it down to this for you: who gets the chicks in high school, which is basically the most important developmental time of your life emotionally, physically and intellectually? Is it: a) the cool, popular jock or b) the smart nerd. Vice versa for the ladies. Who gets the desirable males in school. Is it the a) social butterfly or b) smart girl who's into science? Face it, science and learning is not a turn on for the majority of the opposite sex during high school. Now this could be because of peer pressure, herd mentality, jock mentality, etc...but when being smart, i.e. a nerd, in hs is seen as an insult, and bragging about how much you failed an exam by is seen as cool, guess which type of person chicks/guys will find attractive? And that's such a huge incentive in HS. Well once your hormones kick in anyway. :p

    42. Re:anti-intellectualism by lgw · · Score: 1

      Most tobacco farms in the US are just there betwen the road and the pot farms. We're losing a fortune by not taxing pot - by some accounts it's America's second-largest cash crop, plus of course there's the $20 billion or so we spend jailing people for non-violent drug crimes. Tobacco and alchohol are certainly worse for the body than pot (but I'm not sure that counts as a argument for legalizing pot).

      Personally I don't care much about legalizing drug use, but it's clear that the war on drugs has providied your average street gang with automatic weapons in a way not seen since prohibition, and *that* is a problem that affects everyone. I'd trade a bunch of drive-by shootings for a bunch of pot-heads any day.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:anti-intellectualism by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This didn't start in the '60s. It probably didn't start in the '40s. It may have been intensifying, but it was pretty bad in the 50's. OTOH, the total level of violence was less. I merely got beaten up occasionally and had some property destroyed, I wasn't really threatened. OTOH, I was a white kid, and larger than average. I don't know whether this made me more or less of a target. (We moved around, so I can attest that the problem wasn't confined to one school.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    44. Re:anti-intellectualism by maxume · · Score: 1

      Rove got Bush elected, not his 'folksy' ways.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    45. Re:anti-intellectualism by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's the money and power associated with the big time dealers that is the danger. If you could buy a pack of joints at the 7-11, somehow it doesn't seem like a big deal anymore.

      Then again, the government enjoys having the power to shit on our rights more than it cares about weed. They know weed is not the scary gateway drug they say it is. But it makes for a great excuse to bust someone's balls and enact fucked up legislation on its behalf. See the War on Terror(TM) for reference.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    46. Re:anti-intellectualism by lgw · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine likes to say "if General Mills made cocaine, it would be $5 for a 10 pound bag in the grocery store". Hard to see gangs buying automatic weapons with the proceeds from competing with that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    47. Re:anti-intellectualism by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      I don't think your assessment of consistent cultural anti-intellectualism is accurate. I remember watching Forbidden planet a few years ago and noticing that throughout the movie one of the main characters is treated as near-omnipotent simply by dint of being a scientist. My understanding is that this type of theme was commonplace throughout the era.

      In any case, I think it comes down to the invention of the pill (the timing is conspicuous too). Once you didn't in any way need to get married to get laid, suddenly the ability to run a good household and win bread, which is strongly dependent on your intelligence, became a lot less important. Not surprisingly, realizing they could now get sex without being capable of heading a family, suddenly a large portion of the population stopped caring about being capable of heading a family. Ergo, education stopped being so compelling. Yes?

      And as a final point, I'd like to note the HUGE decline in males bothering with higher education, even though the financial rewards for doing so have gone nowhere but up, and are almost certain to continue doing so. Conspicuous, no?

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    48. Re:anti-intellectualism by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      • creationism vs. evolution
      • abstinence-only sex education
      • the war on drugs, which emphasizes prohibition (based mostly on dogma) over harm reduction (based on empiricism--"what works")
      So, other than you not liking them, what do Creationism, abstinence-only sex ed, or the war on drugs have to do with science and engineering?
    49. Re:anti-intellectualism by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Wow, do I ever disagree with that.

      Fortunately, so does my wife. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    50. Re:anti-intellectualism by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      If anything the U.S. has gotten more and more secular as science and math education and achievement have declined. Leave it to Slashdot mod to claim this bullshit is insightful. Could it have anything to do with the conservatives encouraging the rich to pull their children (and more importantly their tax dollars) away from the public schools?

      Nothing quite encourages a school to fail like limiting their funding (i.e. decreasing property taxes which used to be how public schools were funded in the U.S.). Now local schools have to rely on the state and federal government for funding. Praying would be a better bet. At least imaginary sky fairies can't reduce your budget.

    51. Re:anti-intellectualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure i agree. It's not uncool to be smart, it's uncool to lack social graces. A lot of kids that are so called "dorks" aren't necessarily dorks because they're smart, but smart because they're dorks. Lacking in social graces they may turn to their smarts to gain some amount of social acceptance. Or even more simply, because their brains are their strength. The point is, I know plenty of people who are smart without being labeled as geeks or dorks.

      I would also like to point out that the stupid jock is also vilified and put down in movies. Cue the inevitable scene where our hero stands up to the jock, either as the geek or in his defense.

    52. Re:anti-intellectualism by Beliskner · · Score: 1

      THERE's the start of your problem. Kids are not smart because you are a dork for being smart. fix that and you fix almost everything else
      This is because all the technical jobs are gradually being outsourced, and the US Educations System is being altered to create a huge bunch of middle managers as opposed to geeks, because middle management is where the US job market is going to be over the next 50 years. Nothing to see here, move along now...
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    53. Re:anti-intellectualism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

      Some of it even begins in a defective public school administration system:
      1. More focus and better rewards for athletics than science, art, and humanities. Why do supplies for the chemistry class dwindle and funding for band class languishes, yet schools put a huge effort into having really nice athletic equipment and a decent playing field? Why all the sports scholarships and perhaps a mere handful of anything academic?
      2. A half-assed backwards federal funding policy. Why is it required that the retards and anti-social misantropes be integrated into a normal classroom. Doesn't anyone have a f'ing clue that this is completely counter-productive, as such students disrupt the normal students from actually learning anything. Not that retards and and anti-socials don't deserve some improvement in terms to their education, but special-ed should be special-ed. In its present form "No child left behind" is also making sure that "No child gets ahead" becomes true as well.
      3. Tenure rather than results based teaching system. Too many "educators" coasting along on their laurels while students fail to grasp anything. (Many of the near-retirement teachers run the class to the point that having no teacher and student self directed study would be equally effective.) There should be more reverse evaluation in the system where teachers are graded by parents and students. Such that test results can be compared to whether or not students (or their parents) felt as if effective learning was occuring.
      4. Misapropriation of education funds. Why do classrooms get run-down or are under-supplied when administrators who sit on their asses talking to friends on the phone all day get six-figure incomes? And then they cry about needing more tax money? B.S.! They don't need any more money than they had 10 years ago. Stop mismanaging the taxpayer dollars!

    54. Re:anti-intellectualism by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Well, you could say that the US had a whole new "wild wild West" experience which had to start from scratch on a lot of societal things, while Europe retained its relatively organized institution throughout. Americans became outdoorsmen and had to build their society anew by working from the ground up.

    55. Re:anti-intellectualism by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      Ask the average American to identify ONE thinker?

      When political party shills are labeled "serious intellectuals" by the media, it quickly renders the term "intellectual" useless.

    56. Re:anti-intellectualism by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what type of education rich conservatives (I am not either one) choose to give their kids, the fact remains that religion has less of a role in people's daily lives and their kid's education than it did, say, 40 years ago. Far from advocating prayer in schools, I prefer that religion stay out of government and education. I am disputing the notion that religion is behind any supposed rise in anti-intellectualism or somehow directly interferes with sound math and science education in the classroom.

      School budgets are certainly an issue, but you will have to do a little more to convince me that declining local tax support for public schools is a conspiracy by the religious right to wipe out secular education. People don't like higher taxes in general and the local/school budgets are pretty much the only ones that they have the opportunity to vote directly on.

  19. "It's so hard!" by ProteusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what I hear from my freshman-sophomore math majors nearly every day. Sorry to pass the buck, but I suspect that HS math is either dumbed down or grade inflation prevents the kids and their parents and their parents' lawyers from complaining too much. So, they get A's in a "hard" subject, get lots of kudos because this must indicate that they're smart, and so some decide (quite logically) to choose math as a major in college.

    Then if you get a prof who expects excellent performance for an A, average for a C, and F if you never did work enough to catch on, and then their world turns absolutely upside-down.

    Should students study harder? Absolutely. And _13 years_ of public education ought to provide adequate training in how to study. If not, we'll get more of these "disturbing" trends.

    1. Re:"It's so hard!" by futuresheep · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It is dumbed down. I highly recommend that everyone takes a hard look at the math curriculum in your areas schools. Too many now are using programs like TERC and Everyday Mathematics that stress self discovery, group work, calculator usage, and a spiraling learning path instead of mastering a topic and moving forward. They deemphasize standard algorithms, multiplication table memorization, and long division. Thank god there are states like Texas and California that have recently found these programs to be deficient, and are no longer using them in their schools.

      Links to information and curriculum reviews:

      http://www.wheresthemath.com/
      http://www.wheresthemath.com/blog/curriculum-reviews/
      http://www.nychold.com/
      http://www.weaponsofmathdestruction.com/
      http://128.208.34.90/ramgen/archive/weekday/conv20070313.rm

    2. Re:"It's so hard!" by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem in the US is that we stopped teaching how to study/learn, and only teach how to memorize for some SAT and then forget...or rather, that's the emphasis. You can still learn, but you have to want to learn... and since peer pressure in HS says that knowing things is "dumb"(!), you can guess the outcome. Yay!

      --
      stuff |
    3. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was recently released from the public school systems and there was no "grade inflation" nor did any of my peers ever have to involve legal aid. It may be that i live in a minority dominated area of the country; But our Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate programs were flawless. It has nothing to do with our school system, it has something to do with my generations lack of priorities. The people you do see this having a problem with usually end up being kids that have the idea that their parents' can financially support them. With the average per capita income being less than 19,000 in a southern California city, let's see how many of my peers would you see complaining about difficulty in subjects. I never saw one.

    4. Re:"It's so hard!" by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      That's what I hear from my freshman-sophomore math majors nearly every day.

      [old man voice]Back in MAH day, we knuckled down! We didn't take anything for granted, we worked our asses off!

      Eh. I think every generation laments the work ethic of the next generation, and don't remember that their generation was just as whiny.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:"It's so hard!" by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Actually the SAT isn't the problem--it's emphasized less and less because the SAT itself is "too hard". What does that mean? It means you can't bullshit it. You can bullshit your GPA if they lower the bar far enough, but the SAT is harder, despite the fact that each revision to the SAT makes it easier.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:"It's so hard!" by timholman · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is dumbed down. I highly recommend that everyone takes a hard look at the math curriculum in your areas schools. Too many now are using programs like TERC and Everyday Mathematics that stress self discovery, group work, calculator usage, and a spiraling learning path instead of mastering a topic and moving forward. They deemphasize standard algorithms, multiplication table memorization, and long division. Thank god there are states like Texas and California that have recently found these programs to be deficient, and are no longer using them in their schools.

      I teach introductory electrical engineering courses, and am constantly dismayed at the number of engineering students who (a) cannot read a graph, (b) cannot determine the slope and y-intercept of a straight line drawn on an x-y plane, and (c) cannot take two equations with two variables (e.g. x+y=5, 2x-3y=1) and solve for those variables. This is stuff that was taught to me in high school, and it is completely beyond the capability of many of my students.

      At the same time, these same students often have multiple AP credits in mathematics that allows them to skip the first or even second semester of calculus. The result? Few of them can take a simple derivative or integral either. I'm not talking about integration by parts, or the chain rule. I'm talking about taking the derivative or integral of x^2, or e^2x.

      Clearly something is missing from current high school math curriculums compared to 20 years ago. Personally I would love to ban AP credits at my place of work as well, but as everyone points out: "If we don't accept AP credits, the students will simply apply to a school that does." It's dumbing down by the lowest common denominator.
    7. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peer pressure also leans kids towards attempting to circumvent any computer-based restrictions in place so that they can visit their Myspace accounts (and other similar social networking garbage sites).

      From my observations of students trying to "game" the system, if they spent even half the amount of effort studying that they spend trying to get around the system, there wouldn't be any problems.

      -M

    8. Re:"It's so hard!" by Black+Art · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is worse than that. You are punished for taking hard courses.

      If you expect to get into a good college, you have to have a pristine GPA. In order to get that, you have to cut back on courses that are hard. If you take hard course you will learn more, but you may not score as well. So doing hard things loses out.

      I had a crappy GPA in high school. I took the hardest courses I could find. I learned a lot, but it made getting into a good college next to impossible.

      The system is rigged against those who want an intellectual challenge. Until we change that, the rest is a foregone conclusion.

      --
      "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
    9. Re:"It's so hard!" by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      You probably don't need to all-out ban AP credits. Just restrict them. "Sure, you can skip Calculus I, but our Calc 2 is designed differently so you have to take it." Or, require a 5 to get the Calc 2 credit. I imagine a number of students in the situation you're describing took the AP test a good while before entering your courses. It's amazing how rusty one's math gets in 9 months, much less 12.

      Just a thought from a guy going back to school to become an astronomer.
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    10. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is indeed true of many high schools and even elementary and middle schools. Add that with the fact that math and science are becoming less and less popular as the more liberal classes become more popular. I am a math major at a pretty above average college, and the ratio of math majors to business majors is almost 1:3. The simple fact is that we are digging a hole for ourselves and not doing much to get ourselves out.

    11. Re:"It's so hard!" by khallow · · Score: 1

      So how many schools did you go to? I've taught for a few years at the university level (in public universities), and have spoken to many other teachers at the university level. The concensus is that new students are more poorly prepared than they've been at any point in the past few decades, and that public schools collectively continue to get worse. The myth that there's something wrong with the latest Generation Alphabet is misleading. All generations have had a lack of priorities and similar flaws. But students from those generations turned out better prepared for college and life despite that. The only difference as I can see is public schools. They aren't as aggressive as they used to be in teaching important subjects. It's also quite possible that the quality of universities has declined over the years, despite the massive increase in cost.

      The real difference in your situation is that you came from a solid high school. There are plenty of schools without a good advanced placement program or the other features you describe. For example, I graduated from a high school that had no special preparation for college (and no advanced placement classes) in western North Carolina. There was only one high school in the county that had any (English only if my extremely hazy memory is correct) and it was the best funded of the group. Further, I had at the time traveled to some other schools to play music (marching band, orchestra, and handbells, for your edification), and the really urban schools (Asheville, NC and a school in Greenville, SC) were real zoos. These schools were big, disfunctional, and had an environment that felt like a prison. In the Greenville one, we drove up to a grey concrete box building that had that prison feel and about three thousand students. Inside they had gathered all the students into a gym to listen to handbell music. Despite a couple of pathetic warnings from the principal, there was a constant chatter while we played (I can't remember if this was the orchestra I was with or handbells).

      You can blame the students. After all, that was collectively rude and a real pain. But I think the idea of putting several thousand students in one place with poor supervision begs for the kind of problems we saw. This would have happened with any generation. Then for a more modern example, there's the LA Unified School District which is a model of disastrous inefficiency and waste. Odds are fair that you came from one of the better schools in that district (I understand it is the largest school district in the US), but you probably didn't come from the worst schools.

      Second, per capita income is higher than $19,000 in Southern California cities. That figure is in error. Even adjusting for inflation, only a few regions had below $19k per capita. And that's ignoring areas like Orange County which are part of the Los Angeles metropolis no matter how much they wish they weren't. San Diego was above $22k per capita as well.

      Finally, while I don't see the current generation as being particularly whiny, it's worth noting that whining and doing are not mutually exclusive. One can whine like a kicked puppy yet still get work done. Revulsion can motivate, especially in disfunctional bureaucratic environments, other people to give you stuff to stay away. So I can't deride it since it often is a successful strategy. Instead, the real problem is that way too many people end up having to repeat stuff that they supposedly learned in high school. And all the stoicness in the world isn't going to give you that time back.

    12. Re:"It's so hard!" by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Math is supposed to be hard. That's why it's called math. Ask a Barbie.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    13. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is logic at work for you. You got mediocre grades in hard courses in high school, presumably ones that would be similar to your college course work. Now, your GPA is lower and you cannot "get into a good college". This raises a pair of questions:

      1. What is a "good college"? Most state schools will accept just about anyone, and they are not all bad schools. I actually attended a top engineering school that was a state school. It should be noted getting into the school was easier then getting into the college of engineering. The philosophy was that you had a chance to prove your worth in college. IF you bomb out of the course work there, it is time to consider a new career path.

      I know plenty of people who saw $$$$ when they got to college if they majored in computer science. Needless to say I ran into a lot of stupid people when I took CIS courses. Compare this to my ECE course work, where I saw many more people who understood material and who had good grades in other subjects beyond the major coursework. The reason was ECE offered a few courses pre-major entry that weeded out a lot of the fluff. People would bomb out on these much simpler courses and never actually enter the major. (As a final thought, you can always try transferring into a "good school" once your college grades are good enough.)

      2. How much did you really learn? You were getting lower grades, which were based on assignments and tests designed to show knowledge of the course material. You would not be the first, nor the last to say what you did. So ask yourself, how much did I really learn in high school? Or were you in classes full of people who took AP and got A's even though they were practically sleeping through class?

      Wanting an intellectual challenge is one thing, but if there was such a disjoint between your AP and your standard courses, then I think your school had issues. My HS had three tiers of courses, of course, I slept through half of them. This was a situation of public schools holding me back, something my mom has even admitted in the past that wouldn't have happened had she known what she would learn after I graduated. The fact is that public school (much like fast food) takes a one-size fits-all approach. For some people, it is too much and for others it is too little. We don't want to identify anyone who is "slow" as being "special", so why afford anything to those who are "advanced". Instead, we combine everyone together and force out drones who know only what the system wants them to know.

      You want to change the system, then fight for privatization of school systems, end the teachers unions, and fight against legislation like the "No Child Left Behind Act". I don't plan on sending any child of mine through traditional public schools. If I have someone sharing my genetic predispositions, they will be bored and never stimulated enough.

    14. Re:"It's so hard!" by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      I had a 5.2 coming into college because my college weighted GPA like this:
      Value of an A:
      Nonacedemic class (PE, shop, etc.): 0.0
      Honors Class: 5.0
      Gifted Class: 5.0
      AP Class : 6.0

      Since I took a ridiculously large number of AP and gifted classes, I did really well.

      'Course, I'd never have gotten a full ride from the state's merit-based scholarship program if my high school hadn't reported my GPA as 3.8.

      I wish my high school had the same thing. The only thing they weighted was AP. The valedictorian was only first because the saluditorian took driver's ed one summer and lowered her GPA.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    15. Re:"It's so hard!" by Omestes · · Score: 1

      But if we told little Billy that he downright sucks at algebra, it would hurt his self-esteem. We'd be limiting his horizons, since we all know that 90% of action is the WILL to do it, not some high falutin' concept like "knowing how to do it", or "doing it well". Our children should feel good about themselves, and education should be FUN, not some grueling, boring, and painful time.

      Math, it so happens, makes Billy feel dumb. Dumb isn't a positive thing to feel, it leads to depression. He should play football, then he'll learn useful social skills, and learn to have a good self esteem.

      Ugh. Actually my old college roommate was in for primary ed., and this is pretty much how it goes. That and the teachers who DO try, and give kids bad grades for bad performance (IMAGINE!) get screamed at by administrators who receive snarky letters from parents who KNOW that their kid really is smart (smart is anecdotal, not something based on performance, it seems). Everyone thinks their kid is special. This, to some extent, is the legacy of the 60's.

      We add to this the exit testing, where you teach the test, and nothing more, to make your school look successful, and ensuring better funding. Adding more onus to administrators to hammer "rogue" teachers back into line.

      To make this more fun, I live in Arizona, which is rock bottom as far as education goes. Where part of the problem is linguistic, to many limited resources are directed towards teaching kids how to speak English. Immersion made this worse, since now teachers need to focus on teaching classes to mixed groups who can't even speak the same damn language. Regardless of the partisan stance on immigration you wish to take, this is a bad thing.

      As unpopular as this will be here, drugs too are a massive issues in secondary education. In my highschool over 60% of my freshman class dropped out (the highest in Arizona history then), thats 60% of 900 students. Not a drop in the bucket. This mostly was do to methamphetamine and other drugs, from my anecdotal experience. Granted I think this is a symptom of a larger cultural problem, rather than a cause in-it-self. Probably springing from the same think causing young girls to dress like whores, an utter (and willful) lack of parental discipline, enabled by our culture condoning, or at least fatalistically accepting this.

      We are the new barbarians. I hate to say that, but I fear it might just be increasingly true.

      Also, looking back in history, we really haven't been a scientific power-house for a VERY long time. Most of our influential scientists from the 40's onward were Europeans who fled Europe. Actually, how many of the Manhattan Project scientists were children of the American education system? Not saying that American scientists aren't good, but I think the idea of a previous America-as-Science-Superpower era, might be rather fallacious.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    16. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same in college. My grades blew as an undergraduate (Georgia Tech). And they blew partially because I took so many classes that I did not need, but which sounded interesting. (And I was too stubborn to drop.)

      It certainly made it more difficult to get into graduate programs. But I did. And my MS performance was much, much better.

      Fast forward a few years, and I am in PhD program, after having worked for 6+ years as an engineer. I have "top qualifications." Yet I am still turned down on fellowship applications because of my undergraduate GPA. And some schools still did not want me, despite already having expertise in areas where they conduct research. (I'm looking at you, U Texas, you GPA statistics whore.) And when I say that it is my undergraduate GPA that disqualifies me, it is because the computer-based application tells me "you do not qualify based on your undergraduate GPA."

      Now, I understand that fellowships are very competitive, and that the sponsoring organizations get plenty of "paper-perfect" applicants to choose from. But are the "perfect applicants"--most straight out of the MS and BS programs any better than I am at engineering R&D? I'll say no, most are not. And I base that thought on my experiences working with them.

      In retrospect, I suppose I could tell you students to prioritize keeping you GPA's as high as possible, and to get to know people who would be good references-- both good things to do. However, when it comes time to execute at work, the experience of having been in over you head in school, and the hours playing around with stuff, and the "wasted study time" spent succumbing to you curiousity as a student will pay off.

      To those of you who can do it all, I hate you!

      Just kidding. :-)

    17. Re:"It's so hard!" by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually never underestimate dropping out, getting a GED, and hitting up 2 years of community college instead. I actually found myself giving this advice to kids lately. Smart kids are bored by our schools, therefore we medicate them, right now the only solution is to escape, and go find your own level.

      A GED wipes your high school GPA from the books. Sure you might not be able to hit Harvard or MIT, but most schools really don't care. And really our community colleges are a godsend, they don't deserve the bad rep they get. Some of the best professors I've ever had we are comm. college, they just got sick of the university milieu and politics as they got older, but still loved teaching. Granted, one should never really go for an AA if one wants to actually go to a University, its a waste of credits.

      Leaving high school (junior year) my GPA was... It was low. Leaving comm. college, I had a 4.0. Had no prob finding a non-prestige university to accept me.

      If you want a prestige university, you have ulterior motives, and not just academic advancement.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    18. Re:"It's so hard!" by novakyu · · Score: 1

      That's what I hear from my freshman-sophomore math majors nearly every day. Actually, if you are speaking strictly of math majors only, as someone with a B.A. in math (and having considered an engineering major for some time), I can say that it may simply be that the students you talk to are not as bright as students in other majors.

      Really, the brightest people I knew seemed to major in engineering, like EECS. Things that are profitable. At least that was the case where I got my B.A.
    19. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Should students study harder? Absolutely. And _13 years_ of public education ought to provide adequate training in how to study. If not, we'll get more of these "disturbing" trends."

      Have you ever considered american culture breeds "No life" syndrome? Kids watch their parents work like dogs in the current system with barely any spare time, is it anywonder the feel enormous pressure and want it easier? The fact of the matter is we've created an unsustainable culture and it's going to backfire sooner or later.

    20. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ug, why do I think that you are in education with an axe to grind?

      Deemphasizing standard functions is stupid, no doubt. That's what long division IS. That's the entire problem. Multiplication (and hence division) tables though? This is just rote memorization. The lack of such should show up within DAYS of the subject. Entire programs based on rote memorization of ANY table or a single simple function like multiplication or division (you might as well say addition and subtraction) should be obvious signs of serious educational troubles - if not just a general failure of the school system.

    21. Re:"It's so hard!" by Alamais · · Score: 1

      Indeed. However, community college does not exclude one from prestige (and the doors it can open). My educational path was:

      GED (mediocre score, I had...deficiencies)
      Community College (4 years, AA, 4.0...well okay, 3.975...it rounds)
      Top 40 Liberal Arts College (3 years, BA, 3.85)
      Ivy League Grad School (currently working on a PhD)

      And nothing fluffy either--I'm in physics, and I hope to work in fusion power when I'm done here. I got an awesome education at my community college, and it was a great environment. Taking plenty of time there to work on my writing skills has especially helped me (my school/grant application letters are...unique, and I believe a good, attention-holding letter is a foot in the door). Sure, you run into a bunch of career-focused robots (just like in standard Colleges and Universities), but they're easy to ignore. If you look, you'll find plenty of people who are there simply to learn as much as they can.

      I find I am especially appreciative of the number of 'non-traditional' (read: not fresh out of high school) students I had the chance to work with there. They add some maturity and experience, and quite a few of them are attending simply out of a desire to improve themselves. Even at my 'top 40' liberal arts college, there were plenty of kids who really weren't ready for college--some people just take longer to realize that they don't like being ignorant, and it takes a lot of courage to go back to school and do something about it.

      As for quality of education, at least half of those who I'd list as the best professors I've had were at my community college. Frankly, the majority of the profs at my Ivy are pretty poor teachers--the focus is on research, and they don't have the time to put real effort into improving their teaching.

      For what it's worth: don't aim low, no matter where you go, or what you do.

    22. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the punctuation curriculum?

      "a hard look at the math curriculum in your areas schools"

      I think there should an apostrophe in "area's". Or maybe "areas'".

    23. Re:"It's so hard!" by futuresheep · · Score: 1

      How about anonymous coward grammar nazi correction?

    24. Re:"It's so hard!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not just true in math - although it is certainly an issue there (I am currently a grad student and I am amazed at the number of my colleagues who know nothing about statistics). I did my undergrad work in photography in the late 1990's, and I took a course in Photoshop in 1998. I am now taking a graduate degree in electronic imaging, and last semester I enrolled in a course called Advanced Electronic Imaging. We covered exactly the same topics in the advanced course last year as the topics covered in the intro course in 1997. This is beyond sad, and I was so bored by the Advanced course.... I am posting anon so as not to irritate the instructor (who is also my adviser).

    25. Re:"It's so hard!" by novakyu · · Score: 1

      I had a crappy GPA in high school. I took the hardest courses I could find. I learned a lot, but it made getting into a good college next to impossible. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "good college", but here's something I remember from a FAQ of a good college (probably MIT) when I was considering going to college (mostly paraphrased, as I don't want to search for source):
      ====
      Q: For admission to MIT, is it better to take honors course and get a B, or take regular courses and get an A?
      A: Students who are admitted to MIT are able to take honors courses and get an A.
      ====

      I suppose things become quite simple at either end of the spectrum---if you are really stupid, no matter what course you take, you'll get a C average, and if you are indeed talented, then no matter what course you take, you ought to get an A or A+. For everyone else, well, it's just knowing yourself---after all, that's half the battle.
  20. Pretty obvious really by Ev!LOnE · · Score: 1

    And this did not need a study or a research to prove it. The schools have fat kids always trying to woo girls into getting laid; how do we expect them to do research? Maths? Come on! Most of the research industry is comprised of hardworking Indians and Chinese who probably get paid a bit less but are the sole reason for so many breakthroughs and patents Americans like to call their own! Most americans are not aware of their contributions, but well, face it.

    1. Re:Pretty obvious really by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      "The schools have fat kids always trying to woo girls into getting laid"

      Hey man, I think I speak for everyone here when I say, our appearance isn't necessarily what repels people - we're just weird regardless. ;)

    2. Re:Pretty obvious really by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Well, if these Indians and Chinese are US citizens, then they *are* American breakthroughs and patents.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  21. The US is not immune... by Badgam · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least it looks like there is some progress being made in revitalizing government support for basic research, although we will still have to wait to see if the damages done to scientific research in key fields can be repaired by the next Administration. Hopefully, people are starting to realize that the US doesn't exist in a magical opportunity bubble and unless we remain competitive at all levels of innovation, from basic research to patenting to bringing those developments to market, we are not going to hold on to our competitive edge. America is not immune to the global economy..it's that simple: the United States, like every other economically developed nation has to preserve its comparative advantage by ensuring that it retains a technological lead over its competitors. If we lose that lead, we slide in to economic stagnation and eventually outright decline. At the very least, maybe we'll get some leaders who actually listen to their experts.

    1. Re:The US is not immune... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning: What follows is a rant. Proceed with caution. OK, so we improve science education and train a bunch of world class scientist. What then? Speaking as a non-tenured, tenure-track Assistant Professor, I can honestly say that the science profession in the US is a nightmare. I wouldn't wish this career on my worst enemy. I've trained my entire life for this job. I've done quite well with publications, teaching, etc. However, the way the system is set up, if you have trouble securing Federal funding, you're fired. Simple as that. The only money that counts is Federal money. Foundations typically don't pay indirect costs (substantial kickbacks to the University to pay for electricity, secretaries, etc). It HAS to be Federal. OK. that's fine, but NIH or NSF funding, for example, is almost impossible to get. Back in the good ole days, you had a 20-25% chance of getting your work financed by the NIH. Now, there's a less than 8% chance, depending on the NIH institute. This is what our science graduates in Biomedical Sciences (Physical Sciences may be worse) get to look forward to. You might think that your salary is secure since it comes from the University.... nope.. Most of your salary as a Professor comes from grants. If you can't get grants, you don't get paid. You might think that the University will provide some funding for supplies, students, etc.. Nope.. that also comes from your grants. You might think the University will provide you with a lab to do your work.. Nope.. they want rent for the benches and square-footage that your lab occupies. That comes from the Federal grants that we can't get. I'm sure this will all get better during the next Administration; however, by that time, I'll be that disgruntled 40 year old guy at MacDonald's who makes your Happy Meals...Would you like fries with that?

    2. Re:The US is not immune... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it looks like there is some progress being made in revitalizing government support for basic research, although we will still have to wait to see if the damages done to scientific research in key fields can be repaired by the next Administration.


      I agree. But I do not think that we should wait for the next administration to undo the damage. I would like to think that engineers and scientists would be eager to get their hands dirty in some of the economic and business details that could ultimately lead to better business models and good decisions. Are we?

    3. Re:The US is not immune... by Badgam · · Score: 1

      It really is shameful, especially when you consider the amount of time and investment you have to make to get a degree in the field. People that should be seen as dedicated, hardworking rolemodels are instead shafted.

      Maybe it's time we folded the NIH in to the Department of Defense? Sadly,I'm only being half joking here, because honestly the military is the only route that is still pretty open to a lot of basic research projects; I can only wonder what militarization of civilian medical research will produce, but it's a pretty sad sign when the only arm of your government still capable of doing what it's supposed to do is the armed forces. Our politicians are so obsessed with trying to create some kind of illusion of government responsibility that they're gutting the very systems that have brought us to where we are.

      I don't slight the military's work in the least (in fact I wholeheartedly support it), because a lot of it is very useful and very bold, and we would not have the kind of progress that we do without it, but we can't just rely on that as the main route to progress. America can't rest on its defense budget alone; that's the very mistake a lot of states have made in the past, and it did ultimately cost them a lot, sometimes their very existence.

    4. Re:The US is not immune... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      At the very least, maybe we'll get some leaders who actually listen to their experts.

      We don't need leaders to listen to "experts". Our current leader listens directly to God! Remember, we invaded Iraq because God said to!

    5. Re:The US is not immune... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what they want to do; the current Administration isn't going to change course because some stupid engineers and scientists think it's a good idea. After all, Bush takes his orders directly from God.

  22. The US also leads the world in patent development by miketheanimal · · Score: 1

    That probably explains a lot ....

  23. No Job Security, High Cost of School, Outsourcing by deweycheetham · · Score: 1

    The compensation (interms of wages, costs of ongoing education, job security, and work hours) should fit the labor market. For the last 8 years they have been all out of wack and are not paying for itself in America.

    Anyone who enters the Engeneering or CS Fields had better know what they are getting into. And I think the kids today do know, and that's why the best and brightest are not enrolling in those areas.

  24. Possible paradox explaination by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 0, Troll
    "For example, US schools continue to lag behind internationally in science and math education. On the other hand, the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies. The US also leads the world in patent development."

    Perhaps our freedoms, which while not spectacular, vastly outclass the rest of the world, allow our best and brightest to vastly outperform the best and brightest of more nations? If this is the case, the last thing we would want is to further centralize education into a mighty fist of the State.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:Possible paradox explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "vastly outclass the rest of the world"? And this gets modded Insightful? Presumably by other Americans.

    2. Re:Possible paradox explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Perhaps our freedoms...vastly outclass the rest of the world"
      Haha great joke on the state of American egotism and frighteningly vanishing freedoms! You were kidding right?

    3. Re:Possible paradox explaination by TastyCakes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry... Is this a troll? American freedoms "vastly outclass the rest of the world"? Centralized education is a mighty fist of the state? Have you been reading a bunch of captain america comics or something? Exactly how ass backwards do you think the rest of the world is? "Freedom" doesn't generate research, money does and America is a large portion of the world economy. That's about all there is to it. China is a rapidly growing competitor in research, are new "freedoms" there responsible for this? The USSR had a massive research infrastructure, was that due to freedom of any kind beyond the government having the idea that technological advancement is a good thing?

      As for your second statement, centralization isn't the issue with education, the fact that a huge number of highschool students are coming out of american schools largely uneducated is. I should think the last thing we would want is to continue churning out increasingly economically uncompetitive students, whether that's done through centralized means or other (what do you even mean by "centralized"?) seems secondary.

    4. Re:Possible paradox explaination by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1
      China is a rapidly growing competitor in research, are new "freedoms" there responsible for this? The USSR had a massive research infrastructure, was that due to freedom of any kind beyond the government having the idea that technological advancement is a good thing?

      This doesn't invalidate my statement. I never said that other nations couldn't increase their output of R&D, only that ours are conceivably more productive per researcher. The USSR wasn't exactly on the forefront of technological innovation. As you may recall, they had to steal our stuff, make copies, and slap their own badges on it.

      "As for your second statement, centralization isn't the issue with education, the fact that a huge number of highschool students are coming out of american schools largely uneducated is."

      You're missing the positive correlation between centralization and a decline in the quality of the output; in this case, students.

      Captain America isn't exactly an icon that an anti-statist would use to support their arguments. Wrong side.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    5. Re:Possible paradox explaination by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      It's not our freedoms, it's our vast piles of cash. And it's not our best and brightest--we import the best and brightest from all around the world. How many immigrants do you see entering our high schools? How many immigrants do you see exiting our doctoral programs? Much different proportion there.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:Possible paradox explaination by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      What cash? Our banking system is insolvent, and we have petro-tyrannies bailing out our major banking firms. We're about to enter a serious recession, and all the Federal government can think of is to come up with "stimulus" packages that empirically do nothing positive, and are probably harmful.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    7. Re:Possible paradox explaination by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the right to smoke marijuana and have sex with
      teenage girls doesn't really go all that far in promoting
      economic progress...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Possible paradox explaination by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps our freedoms, which while not spectacular, vastly outclass the rest of the world, allow our best and brightest to vastly outperform the best and brightest of more nations?

      That's a nice view and all and it may even give you that fuzzy feeling in your tummy but unfortunately it doesn't have anything to do with reality. At all. The US's R&D success was accomplished and is maintained through a single factor: money. Lots of money. It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom nor other patriotic drivel. The US is a very rich nation that dumps loads of cash into research. If you happen to be a talented researcher who happens to like receiving recognition in the form of cold hard cash then you will find that combination attractive, specially if your current job doesn't offer you the research funding you need and your current salary is less than 2000 dollars a month.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    9. Re:Possible paradox explaination by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      You never said that American researchers are more productive per capita. And if I'm missing a "positive correlation" between centralization and quality of student output, I'd say that correlation remains in your head until proven otherwise. IMO, the size of a school (particularly a high school) isn't a particularly critical factor compared to the economic and social background of the students attending, the quality of the teachers, the strength of the curriculum etc. Actually the USSR did lead the world in a number of areas for some time, and given they developed a lot of the same technologies as the West with a smaller population (if not budget), I would say there's a good case to be made that they were more productive per capita than American and other western scientists. There was of course technology they stole from the West, but there was plenty of home grown advancement as well.

    10. Re:Possible paradox explaination by figgypower · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to throw my two cents here. First, American freedoms in some cases do indeed outclass the rest of the world. For example, the right to own firearms (imagine, a government of the people trusting its people) and the U.S. enjoys a lot of freedom of speech protections. Indeed, a lot of hate speech legislation, less common and less strong in the U.S. than other parts of the world is counterproductive (Strossen, "Defending Freedom: Even for the Thoughts We Hate"). That's not to say other people don't have freedoms that easily outclass America, like the Netherlands somewhat looser standards of "illegal" drugs; people should be free to consume what they'd like so long as it voluntary and they know what they're getting. It would be difficult to ascertain just which country has more freedom, but America is certainly up there. These freedoms enable freer transactions -- they're what literally contribute to a "free" economy. A freer economy will tend to be richer, i.e. have more money (says tons of econometric research). That greater money, as you said, will lead to greater research. That's exactly why China is growing in every direction, including becoming competitive in research. There's more money to invest or throw away; either way, more money to experiment. As for centralization -- it also leads to the question of freedom. Heavy centralization will lead to a loss of freedom as the majority will have greater power, power to override the freedom of the minority population. This is what America's Founding Fathers tried to balance in the Constitution and Bill of Rights: the States' rights and the rights of a "central" Federal government. The idea was to enable the States to experiment with different policies, and people would gravitate towards those States that had better policies, as well as preventing mob rule by means of having States that may be minority dominated giving those minorities greater "voice". Hawaii is an example, but there are plenty of other States, too. In regards to education, the idea is that local people know how to take care of those same local people. It may also be a reason why "centralized" legislation like No Child Left Behind has been unsuccessful (and I'm the sure the lack of funding helps). What would help the U.S. lower educational system is a good public-private mixture. Look at American universities -- they're literally the very top of the heap throughout the world. Why not duplicate a similar framework in our lower educational system? Instead, what we have is a primarily public educational system with private options only for the super -rich. This happens when you push a public system too hard; everyone gets a craptastic "fair" distribution of X Good, while only the super-rich get Super Quality X Good. You have to allow the free market to participate and regulate and aid when it has failures, not regulate and aid overwhelmingly and hope the free market can maybe peek through. This has happened in countries where there is "Universal" health care; sure everyone gets care, but private (free market) care ends up being reserved for the super-rich. And that private, free market care is top-notch and has no waiting lines. Quick side note: while the U.S. has higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy, they rank near the top for treating and curing most diseases/ailments, as well the development of new medical innovations. Infant mortality rates are at best, an indicator of issues with our obstetrics while life expectancy in the U.S. is affected by lifestyle factors that have little to do with our actual health care system. Living in Michigan, it's common to hear Canadians hop the border because of higher quality care and/or smaller lines (say 30 minutes to hours, as opposed to months). And just like in our primarily public educational system, it's the rich that can afford the better stuff. My point being: our educational system needs to be less public. A more private educational system will inherently engender greater competition, which will impro

    11. Re:Possible paradox explaination by figgypower · · Score: 1

      I fucking hate it that when I'm making nice little paragraphs in the text box, only to have it show up as a garbled mess if I forgot the HTML.

    12. Re:Possible paradox explaination by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Actually the USSR did lead the world in a number of areas for some time

        Can you name any major technological or scientific innovation used today that was developed in the USSR? Any major drug or medical therapy? Any computer, car, airplane, consumer electronic device, building, tool, engine or power plant that uses some major idea developed by the Soviets?

      The list for the United States in the same period (1920-1991) is enormous.

      but there was plenty of home grown advancement as well.

      Such as what?

    13. Re:Possible paradox explaination by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      Their space and aeronautics program? The AK47? The T34? I didn't say they remained competitive in these areas (although the AK47 remains a stunningly successful design, and their space systems are apparently more reliable than America's). I said that for a time they led the world in some areas. Their brutally flawed economic system ultimately prevented them from capitalizing on their developments. As the wikipedia article will tell you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_in_the_Soviet_Union), the most successful soviet research was pure science, with less emphasis than the US at turning out working products. Military equipment is the obvious exception, and many countries in the world continue to use Russian weapons or ripped off versions of them. The Chinese space program is also largely based on Soviet designs.

  25. The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that kids today are chasing legal or business degrees. We need more to be in science and/or liberal arts, the way it use to be. A real clue about this, is the current attitude towards NASA or even science. I am amazed that all through the world ppl realize that going to space is important. But here in America, ppl are trying to cut it. The fact that we have 30% of the ppl believing in creationism is a real bad sign. These are all bad signs for USA.

  26. imho most analysis misses the point by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    U.S. students don't underperform their international peers because the school system sucks (although, it does suck). They underperform for two reasons. One is demographics. The U.S. has a much larger lower class than do most other nations to which it is compared. Kids who grow up in poverty with terrible home situations will, surprise surprise, not shine when it comes to academic performance. The second reasons is cultural. If you look at kids not from this underclass, a disproportionate number lack the desire to acquire math/science skills, or, really, the desire to excel academically in any field. One possible contributor to this is that students in the U.S. needn't pass an exit exam in order to graduate high school and enter college. The other is general cultural malaise, but it's harder to define that in any exact sense. There is a "culture of achievement" present in some countries (Japan and Germany come to mind) that is simply lacking in the United States.

    1. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by Silicon_Knight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an immigrant kid that went to high school here, I'll define that "culture malaise" for you. Academics just isn't given as high a recognition in American schools. The HS football game, the HS football team, the cheerleaders get paraded, and it's cool to be a jock. When's the last time you see the Math team, the Chess team, or the Academic Decathlon team get that sort of "hero's welcome"?

    2. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Precisely. This country worships at the altar of the almighty stupid athlete. If you asked a child 35-40 years ago to name a hero, chances were decent that he'd throw out a name like Chuck Yeager or Buzz Aldrin. Now, it's almost universally an athlete who only knows his own name because his coach shouts it at him all day, or a washed-up 'musician' (Britney Britney or Snoop Dogg).

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    3. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to be rude, but all you've really done is re-state what I said. American students value other things over academic achievement. That's not coming from the schools per se, it's coming from the students themselves. As to why that's the case, it's hard to say. I'll add that I don't think it's a new thing. Historically, the U.S. hasn't exactly been a hub of scientific and mathematical innovation. You've got the inventor types like Franklin and Edison, but most of the heavy hitters come from Europe. England, Germany, France, Switzerland and Russia. It could be that there's some sort of latent anti-intellectualism permeating U.S. culture that students in other countries don't have to deal with? Or not; that's just a theory.

      If you look back fifty years, though, it seems like all your points would still apply. Only, back then the U.S. wasn't so far behind everyone else. At least, that's what statisticians would have us believe. Conjure up an image in your mind of the stereotypical "50s" high school. It's all about football, cheerleaders, who's "going steady" with whom, etc. Just like today. It's not as if chess club members were revered as heroes 50 years ago; no, they were mocked just as they are today. So I'm not sure what's changed.

    4. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The U.S. has a much larger lower class than do most other nations to which it is compared."

      Indeed, we all know that poverty in U.S. is way worse than in China, Russia or Eastern Europe, which constantly beat the crap out of us.

    5. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I agree with you , but is there *anywhere* in the world the academic teams receive a hero's welcome? And I mean something like a typical stuff surrounding a Homecoming game.

      Is there a school somewhere that elects a Trigonometry King and Queen? ;-) A Math Czar? An Empress Of Integrals?

      I'm *not* implying it doesn't happen. I'm honestly curious, because I felt as you do as a smart kid back in school, but to be realistic, I didn't want a parade, either. I just wanted some recognition that my accomplishments had some value as well.

      That's one thing schools never do: focus on the future. I never heard anything like, "We're teaching you thes eskills so that some day in the future you won't be facing foreclosure because you signed a subprime mortgage agreement with the math skills of a poodle" or "We're teaching you this so you have the basic sense not to run up $50,000 in bills on a 23% credit card because you could't read that the introductory rate ended after one year despite that fact that it was in 18 point font on the ad."

    6. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by novakyu · · Score: 1

      One possible contributor to this is that students in the U.S. needn't pass an exit exam in order to graduate high school and enter college. Not strictly true. CAHSEE has been around for a while.

      Although, I must admit, if a sophomore can take the test and pass the test, it's not really an "exit" exam in the sense used in other countries (some countries have entrance exam for high school). A true exit exam ought to fail at least 5% of the senior class. And fewer than 10% of underclassmen should be able to pass it. (Numbers pulled out of my arse just now, but the basic principle doesn't change.)
    7. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 1

      It's not just in the high schools. This happens in the Universities too. Examples: professors at my school have to make sure they don't give tests the day after a football game because the students will be recovering from the previous day's inebriation (and their teaching evaluations would certainly suffer if they did). Also, in some of the more jock-filled classes (intro. envi. sci, etc.), something like 5% of the class is cheating on a regular basis on the exams. A significant fraction of the students aren't learning anything in the University, except how to get blind drunk and game the system.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    8. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The HS football game, the HS football team, the cheerleaders get paraded, and it's cool to be a jock. When's the last time you see the Math team, the Chess team, or the Academic Decathlon team get that sort of "hero's welcome"?

      Academic isolationism is also to blame. For your average, middle-of-the-road student, there are tangible benefits to buddying up with the cool kids (and especially the cheerleaders). I've met many highly intelligent people, on the other hand -- Chess Club types -- who are completely incapable of even looking you in the eye, let alone telling a joke. Why would Joe Average even want to spend time with such people, let alone shower them with honors?

      Harsh, I know. But nerd snobbery notwithstanding, a great many "jocks" actually go on to perform well in school. How many pimply, obsessive Monty Python fans with 1,321 logged hours on MMORPGs go on to become great community leaders, or captains of industry?

      Of course, you could argue that the trollish nerds are in fact a product of the American educational system -- just as there are economic haves and have-nots (and the gap is widening), there are social haves and have-nots -- but I'm not a sociologist.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    9. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is there a school somewhere that elects a Trigonometry King and Queen? ;-) A Math Czar? An Empress Of Integrals?

      Hehe, don't be ridiculous.

      Altough that doesn't prevent schools from actually awarding benefits for academic achievements. When i was in highschool, good grades where rewarded by giving a certain amount of days off on the dates of the students choosing, like some kind of 'overtime compensation'. IRC, you'd get 5 days off for a grade average better than 1.5[1], or 2 days off for an average better than 2.0 but worse than 1.5.

      It was also usual to award 'vacation days' for achievement in competitions. Appareantly, this was enough 'recognition' to motivate people to spend additional 4 hours per week on the extracurricular math courses, even though they do NOT earn you credit ...

      ac

      [1](Austrian grades are 1 to 5, with 1 being best, 4 being the worst passing grade, and 5 being a fail. Also, a single 4 would disqualify you from any academic awards, regardless of your grade average. Grade average is only calculated for the performance within a semester, and not over multiple years.)

    10. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Look, the people you mention probably *need* that emotional support in order to feel valued. Fer chrissakes, can you imagine a world where really smart people were given parades, free sports cars, millions of dollars and celebrity makeovers just for being smrt?

      That'd stunt the smart peoples' develoment and encourage them to stay right where they are and plunge us all into some bizarro world where supermodels would be begging nerds for sexual favours and big tough guys would be lined-up for geeky girls to teach them math.

      End of the world, anyone?

    11. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 1

      Fer chrissakes, can you imagine a world where really smart people were given parades, free sports cars, millions of dollars and celebrity makeovers just for being smrt?

      Sure can. Sliders, episode 7.
      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
    12. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by thealsir · · Score: 1

      Consider that most of the parents are ex-jocks, and it makes a lot of sense. They tend to be more open and boisterous.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    13. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse than that.

      America is the only country in the world where people think that you need a parade to recognise good work. Everywhere else, people just work to the best of their ability and get things done. No-one has a special party for German engineers when they produce yet another masterpiece.

      The American view is that we have to be rewarded all the time, immediately, otherwise we won't get off our fat asses. The world owes us a living. And through historical/geographic accident, we have had a continent to expand into (after we killed the original inhabitants) which repaid us bountifully. But this only lasted 200 years, and now that lean times are coming, we can expect the rest of the world to treat us as badly as we have treated them.

      After all, we stole everything, including all of Europe's intellectual property, with no repayment, while we were expanding. We can hardly complain when they do the same to us in the future!

    14. Re:imho most analysis misses the point by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      It is, however, worse in the U.S. than in places like Western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan.

  27. Comparisons with the rest of the world by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it is time to stop comparisons like "the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies", because they give a distorted view of reality. The main reason the USA comes out on top so often with this kind of statistic is simply because it is sound a large populous county.

    For example, the USA wins the most gold medals at the Olympics. But does that mean the USA is the best at sports? No. If we look at gold medals per capita, then Australia easily beats the USA. If we add countries together so we have equivalent populations, then we get another picture - Europe would often beat the USA if it entered as a single country, for instance.

    If you looked at R&D per capita, or R&D as a % of GDP, or any other more reasonable metric that just comparing countries of different sizes, I expect you would get a very different picture than the summary suggests.

    1. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I think it is time to stop comparisons like "the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies", because they give a distorted view of reality. The main reason the USA comes out on top so often with this kind of statistic is simply because it is sound a large populous county.

      By that standard, China and India should have been leading the world for years. Indonesia would be right behind the U.S., followed by Brazil.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the EU entered as one country, it'd only have one team...

    3. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      I think it is time to stop comparisons like "the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies", because they give a distorted view of reality. The main reason the USA comes out on top so often with this kind of statistic is simply because it is sound a large populous county.

      So? The statement in your first sentence is still true. The U.S. is the largest.

      For example, the USA wins the most gold medals at the Olympics. But does that mean the USA is the best at sports? No. If we look at gold medals per capita, then Australia easily beats the USA. If we add countries together so we have equivalent populations, then we get another picture - Europe would often beat the USA if it entered as a single country, for instance.

      But I doubt the U.S. had as many athletes competing as all of Europe combined (especially in team sports where only one is allowed) or 15 times as many as Australia.

      If you looked at R&D per capita, or R&D as a % of GDP, or any other more reasonable metric that just comparing countries of different sizes, I expect you would get a very different picture than the summary suggests.

      True, but there are probably a million different ways you can spin the numbers. For example, I bet that a larger portion of the U.S. GDP is agriculturally based than say Finland. Does the U.S. get "dinged" on % GDP calculation for having ample farmland? All these numbers are ultimately meaningless anyways for anything other than a global pissing contest.

    4. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that R&D spending doesn't necessarily stay in the US.

      High R&D spending is not necessarily a good thing; DOING good R&D on the other hand....

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    5. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by megaditto · · Score: 1

      OK, so the US is at 5% of the world population, yet we get over 40% of research citations.

      So, per capita, America does 13 times more research than the rest of the world.

      Numbers here: http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2007allfields.html

      Notably, our relative position has declined due to the homegrown bigots, socialists, and liberals demanding to be more like Europe.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    6. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we'd still pwn all in a cage match. With motorcycles. On fire.

    7. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by pubjames · · Score: 1

      So? It would be made up of the best athletes in the whole of Europe, so the winners should still be the same.

    8. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's too sciencey and mathy for me. Can you just make up some pretty graphs for us to look at instead?

    9. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      our relative position has declined due to...liberals Yeah, curse those liberals for wanting to fund science! We would have MORE science if we just let the free market, that friend of all progress, handle it!
    10. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Do you know who was the first President to allow Federal funds to go to stem cell research? George W. Bush
      President who doubled NIH funding in the last five years? George W. Bush

      What liberals want is more "education," but they don't give a crap about science at large. They demand specific results (usually related to their socialist agendas: heart desease and cancer treatment, high fructose corn syrup, ethanol, etc.), but don't want to fund research to actually get even these few out. Finally, liberals I know oppose scientific exchanges and object to training foreign grad students and postdocs, or offering research positions to foreigners. They certainly treat science as some sort of welfare program for the masses.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    11. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      Do you know who was the first President to allow Federal funds to go to stem cell research? George W. Bush
      President who doubled NIH funding in the last five years? George W. Bush Completely irrelevant and an obvious attempt to steer the conversation in a different way.

      What liberals want is more "education," but they don't give a crap about science at large. They demand specific results (usually related to their socialist agendas: heart desease and cancer treatment, high fructose corn syrup, ethanol, etc.), but don't want to fund research to actually get even these few out. Yeah, a person named "megaditto" (an obvious reference to Rush Limbaugh) is really fit to speak about what liberals want, rather than actual liberals. Further, "liberals" have no set "agenda" - to think that is ridiculous.

      liberals I know oppose scientific exchanges and object to training foreign grad students and postdocs, or offering research positions to foreigners Then they're not liberal in that respect. Or you classify them as liberals because they're left of you. Remember: just because someone is a liberal in one respect does not make them liberals on all issues.
    12. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. The term 'liberal' means just too many things to many different people.

      I appologize for the confusion: I hoped that it was clear from the context that I was referring to the likes of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ted Kennedy, and the Barak Obama wing of the Democrat party.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    13. Re:Comparisons with the rest of the world by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      America also appears to have the most morons in the world, but that observation doesn't take into account the fact that most other countries don't have the critical mass of population to make the natural moron percentage of population noticeable nor the sensation-seeking media that the US has.

      Note to American morons: I'm actually supporting non-moron Americans here.

  28. Two Big reasons by Niartov · · Score: 0

    There are reasons we fall behind in education.
        Every time someone's baby does bad on a test is going to get held back the school/state is sued so they make the test easier. Heaven forbid you stayed home one night and made you kid do their homework.

    1. Re:Two Big reasons by Howler · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I think you hit the nail on the head here. The answer is simple, its not the government, its the parents. How can we hold the government and teachers 100% liable for the education of our children if we as parents do not get involved on a daily basis with our children's lives and education? I personally believe this lack of involvement is the catalyst for a series of other disturbing issues.

      My wife is a teacher at a middle school, while lack of funding is an issue, the lack of interest displayed by a lot of parents is just down right scary. Seriously, if mommy and daddy don't care why should the child?

      With a lack of involvement, and doing things such as using the TV and video games as a baby sitter, its no wonder why the test scores of kids here in the US are so poor when compared internationally.

      From my observations, there are way too many kids who are extremely disrespectful to their parent, and will do anything to get there way. The parents of such kids, will do just about anything for the kids, and really just want to be their "friend". I call BS! Be a parent! If a kid mouths off to you don't hesitate to tan his hide! Now, I am not an advocate of "beating" kids, but I do support controlled and metered punishment. Spanking can and should be given when appropriate.

      I better get off my soapbox now.

  29. More $$$ by Anarchy24 · · Score: 1

    Yep, lets just throw some more money at it! That'll make our kids smarter! As the Federal government rains cash down on the states, they are slowly taking away what has always been a decision of the local people: what the kids get taught in school. This obviously has tremendous implications (I'll just mention the word 'Hitler' here), and is just one more example of the Feds taking control of our daily lives. No Child Left Behind (laff) has been a travesty to the educational system, and has set a dangerous precedent. Want to cure low graduation rates in high school? Give them something to look forward to after graduation: college. Free. The dumb ones can even just get a 2 year degree, but this would give younger students something to work towards, where college is just for rich white folks [I myself am a poor white, and only in college because of the government was generous enough to give me full scholarship]. There is no doubt that manufacturing jobs are fleeing overseas, and many low-skilled service-sector jobs went overseas years ago. By educating so many more people at this higher level, we would have higher employment and more innovation - the one thing that has kept America successful. We haven't had much of that in the past few years.

  30. I wonder... by DCTooTall · · Score: 1

    Since we lead the world in R&D research, and Patents..... What would happen if I registered for a patent for "A Method of learning Maths and Sciences", followed shortly thereafter with "A Method for applying maths and sciences in R&D".

    Think I could get some of that R&D Money thru licensing of my patents?

  31. Of course, half the graduate students are foreign by gelfling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Half the graduate students in hard sciences in the US are foreign. They're the ones who shine. I don't mean second generation I mean foreign students on academic visas. If they stay in the US, yaay for us. If not? Oh well, the US is indigenously now a nation of retards.

  32. Cut education funding by jav1231 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My position has always been cutting funding to education. The problem is we have continually increased spending and gotten less in return. I recall a couple of years back when a high school senior in a tiny West Virginia town blew the national curve. I imagine his school district placed higher priority on learning and less on social engineering curriculums. Teachers need to make more, administrative services at school need to be cut. And these social education programs need to be shit canned. Spending can be cut, moneys prioritized (read, teachers!) and we can finally focus on what matters!

    1. Re:Cut education funding by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 1

      I'd agreee with what you say, but I'd add one more thing - not sure how it is in America, but here in England, we have the same decline in education, and one of the main causes is the death of competition. State schools have non-competitive sports, place all pupils in the same lessons and proceed at the pace of the slowest, treat the male need to compete as some kind of aberration that can be engineered out and act as if any form of selection is an evil on a par with child molestation.
      Result - children spend their entire lives in some kind of egalitarian fantasy, fail to master by 18 what would have been taught to 13 year olds in the days of grammar schools (and still is in the private sector) and then get a nasty kick up the arse when they enter the real world. Only to then believe that it's unfair that they aren't succeeding and demand even more levelling as a way to compensate for their own failure.

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    2. Re:Cut education funding by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      If they cut spending, they'll cut math and science classes, not some bullshit topic, simply because there will be a vote, and majority will vote to cut math/science.

      Why? Because there are many more bullshit topic teachers than math/science teachers. Bigger departments tend to get bigger, at the expense of smaller ones.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  33. Has Something To Do With High Medical Costs Too! by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    I think the declining quality of education in the United States has something to do with the cost of the medical system. Not enough doctors and too much demand from aging baby boomers and the like means that medical professionals are far better paid salary-wise than almost all other professions. In countries with better performing educational systems, health care is cheaper. Someone should do a regression on education performance vs health care expenditures per capita per year of life.

  34. Meaningless aggregation by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll be devil's advocate here and suggest that the average scores don't mean much.

    Does it matter that somebody with the median score in high school math isn't particularly good at it, if he's working as a salesman or a mechanic?

    Now, I could argue in a liberal arts kind of way that it does matter, because with a better grasp of science these people will be better informed citizens. But from a vocational standpoint, you want to know that if there are N slots for graduates with science skills, the top N science students are very good indeed. And since every job that requires science skills requires strong math skills (but not necessarily vice versa), you want more students to be good at math, but not necessarily every student.

    The trend is towards business giving up on American science, engineering, and know-how in general. So why spend four years after high school gaining skills that aren't wanted? Why spend the money to increase student performance when we can enjoy the use of that money today, and it won't make any difference to their lives except maybe in some kind of woolly headed liberal notion of citizenship? If we were really concerned about the future of our students, it'd be like beating the Soviets in the Cold War, no effort to improbable of success to try, no cost to outrageous to bear.

    It doesn't pay to be better than the rest of the world but get paid more as well. You've got to be a better value. Therefore by in the name of business efficiency, Americans deserve to see their incomes drop until they're on a par with India and China. When the few Americans who, despite economizing on our schools, have attained some level of scientific or engineering skill look like an incredible bargain, the jobs will come back.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Meaningless aggregation by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> with a better grasp of science these people will be better informed citizens.

      No, these people are a threat and exactly the type of people the US government are trying to stamp out.
      What most governments are working hard at is to turn the whole of society into sheeplike ill-informed taxpayers that fill their days with harmless trivia (paris hilton, religion, consumerism, etc) as they are the easiest to control.

    2. Re:Meaningless aggregation by matt_martin · · Score: 1

      Can't agree more !

      Here in America we insist on sending EVERYONE to school, even if they don't want to be there for whatever cultural, sociological or economic reasons. Overlay sub-standard schools in impoverished areas. Of course the average scores will reflect this. The shame in it is not that everyone can't graduate a top-rate scientist/engr - it is that some intrinsically capable and motivated students will never get the education needed to realize their potential.

      When you look at the domestic pool of talent available for science and engineering it is first rate - but for sure it does not include every single person who graduates from the system.

      There are multiple parties which benefit from pushing agendas blasting the US educational system
      including:

      1) businesses attempting to justify getting cheap talent elsewhere (H1 and outsourcing)
      2) teachers wanting more pay (probably justifiably so)
      3) civil rights groups decrying the inequitable system (regional variability in quality of education is disgusting in the US)

      For certain, concentration of wealth in the US works against motivation of domestic talent and pushes cost (salaries) up , reducing cost-effectiveness of hiring US talent. However, it is a joke when companies claim there are not capable folks in the country - they just don't want to pay the going rate.
      There are countless smart and hungry people around the world - US firms know this all too well.

      All you have to do is look at the tricks that are pulled in order to hire H1 employees - load up job descriptions with bizarre and irrelevant requirements, publish the ads in VERY OBSCURE places with extremely short hiring windows, advertise non-competitive salaries all so they can easily claim that nobody in the US applied for the job - the tactics speak for themselves.

      --
      Lurking in the desert
    3. Re:Meaningless aggregation by Simian+Road · · Score: 1

      So why spend four years after high school gaining skills that aren't wanted? Why spend the money to increase student performance when we can enjoy the use of that money today


      All I hear is "Why put money into a savings account / pension when you could be spending it today?"

      It's that sort of thinking that keeps generation after generation of lower class families on the poverty line. The reason to educate the masses to the fullest extent is to increase the quality of life for the greatest number of people, it has sod all to do with whether I'm gonna need all that History or German I learnt back in school right now. I'm planning on living a fairly long while yet, who knows when something I learnt years ago might come in handy and give me the edge over a competitor? Eventually I'll pass my accumulated wealth onto my children who will have an even better start in life. My family will be pushed so far above that poverty line that they can't even see it anymore. The entire point of government with regards to education is to take the long view. It's rare that I see it happening though...

      Disclaimer: I'm middle class white and in a decent job; I accredit the latter part to my education.

    4. Re:Meaningless aggregation by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's that sort of thinking that keeps generation after generation of lower class families on the poverty line.


      Yes, that's the point. The more Americans who are under the poverty line, the more competitive our workforce is.

      Don't pass accumulated wealth down to your children unless it's going to be enough for them to live on. Otherwise they'll never get a job.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Meaningless aggregation by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Does it matter that somebody with the median score in high school math isn't particularly good at it, if he's working as a salesman or a mechanic?


      It certainly matters if he's also, say, voting between different candidates who are making competing claims about economic policy, or (as in many US states), voting directly on proposed laws including bond measures.

      It certainly matters if the health and stability of the economy depends in substantial part on the quality of decisions he (and people like him in the aggregate) make regarding personal finances (mortgages, car loans, etc.).

    6. Re:Meaningless aggregation by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      If that was true then who is going to design various defense systems? Are we going to outsource American arms developments overseas?

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    7. Re:Meaningless aggregation by Simian+Road · · Score: 1

      Or you could just educate them to not be lazy bums? Who on earth advocates placing more people below the poverty line in order to keep the workforce competitive? That's backwards thinking no matter how you look at it.

      Unless you are rich and have your own business. In which case a highly competitive workforce means you get to pay people crap because they are desperate for the job.

  35. ...and trillions into defense by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is the R&D figure still bigger than other countries when it's expressed as a percentage?

    How much of the "R&D budget" is spent developing new weapons?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:...and trillions into defense by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      Not enough; I want a cricket phaser.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    2. Re:...and trillions into defense by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, most of the modern conveniences you enjoy today began as a product of military research and development.

      Like the Internet.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  36. Flawed Study by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

    The study appears flawed from the outset. The United States do not employ a single unified educational system. Education is a state-by-state matter (with some federal money thrown in.) lumping together all the schools in every state for a single study is similar to lumping together all of the schools in Asia.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  37. "Basic" Reasearch by omris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what i see as most disturbing not only in the article, but in the responses, is that no one seems to worry about what is referred to as "basic" research anymore. basic research is the research you do to figure out what is happening in a system normally, figuring out how it's supposed to work. this is the first step in ANY major breakthrough, no matter the field.

    but it's the least funded.

    i work in basic research in the medical field. the NIH is currently funding between 9 and 10 PERCENT of the proposals handed to them. hopefully they are picking the cream of the crop. we don't lack the manpower. there are LOTS of capable people to do the work. it's funding. there is VERY little funding for research unless someone stands to make a great deal of money from it. the problem is, most of the important things we need to figure out are not going to make anyone a pile of money. they may, down the line. but it isn't that likely.

    call me a socialist, but the government needs to get the act together and push their funding toward basic research, and let industry pay for R&D.

    1. Re:"Basic" Reasearch by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Well, Bush just doubled NIH budget during his first term in office.

      The funny thing is, those good old socialist countries in Western Europe invest jack shit in basic research, and get away with it by riding USA's back.

      So socialism is not the answer to basic research funding, it's the question. (and NO is the answer)

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:"Basic" Reasearch by omris · · Score: 1

      first, the five year doubling of the NIH budget ended during his first term. it was started in 1997. and that was NOT a doubling of the budget for funding basic research. during the rest of his two terms, the NIH experience the smallest ever budget increase of 2%. they considered freezing the budget completely. all the growth they tried to achieve was negated by the snails pace of the rest of his time in office. even the current republican presidential candidates have said that we need to fund more science.

      secondly, Europe gets a lot of shit for not spending as much as the US of research. my field is medical, and so i will stick to that for the moment. i work in the neuroscience field specifically, and so i will use that as an example. the US spends much more on research funding in neuroscience than Europe. not shocking, since there are more of us. the estimated cost to the government of neurological diseases is also more in the US than in Europe. again, pretty obvious. the sad part is when you compare the two figures. the amount Europe spends on research represents about 10% of the cost of the health problems. the US, less than 1%. so really, Europe spends proportionally more on research for the same issues when compared to how "bad" a problem is.

      so you suggest that scientists should not look to the government for funding. what other options DO you suggest? find me a company that wants to pay me to publish the paper i have been working on for the past year, and i would be happy to give up the 1.2 million we got from the government. oh wait. remember to tell them there is no realistic chance of making the money back. ever. it really is important research, though. really.

      it should go over well.

    3. Re:"Basic" Reasearch by megaditto · · Score: 1

      so you suggest that scientists should not look to the government for funding. No, that's not at all what I suggest. I said the scientists should not look forward to socialized research funding.

      I am using the definition of socialism as a system where the society/govt controls the ownership and distribution of wealth and related things.

      Socialized funding of your research would mean the govt would tell you exactly what you should be interested in, exactly which project is important, and exactly what happens with the results. Here is a recent example of how well that worked for the Soviet Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
      As a neuroscientist, you are probably quite aware of what that did to their genetics and cybernetics fields.

      In the US, the govt funding of basic research is relatively free market-based: the govt simply collects and passes on the money from the market, then lets the scientists (the market) decide which ideas to pursue. The results also go back to the market (in case of applied research these go to the companies and the university spinoffs, in case of basic research, these go to the scientist 'consumers' [and several research cycles down the line, to the companies]).

      I am not as sure about NIH, but in NSF the govt literally gets no say as to how the money is spent. Peer review of grant applications, one might argue, is the scientific equivalent of a free market... supply and demand at its finest! Now compare and contrast that with Lysenkoism.

      Could it be more market-based? Could we have the equivalent of Bell Labs today, where the market monopolies drive the basic research? I am not sure.

      ==
      Congrats on being a neuroscientist, by the way. I have a few neuroscientist friends, and they seem to be the most altruistic and/or masochistic people I have ever met.
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    4. Re:"Basic" Reasearch by omris · · Score: 1

      ok, with that definition of socialist, who WOULD want it. i meant only that the NIH needs to stop funding so much R&D, and focus of the basic research. since no commercial enterprise has the patience to start at the basics, all that happens is we reinvent the wheel, a little rounder evey turn. the pharmaceutical industry is a perfect example. they are willing to dump huge amounts of money into developing new drugs, but none into understanding how the disease works. you can't patent an understanding of a biological system.

      peer review, while subject to the same political whims as any other playing field with people on it, is the best solution we can muster, i would say. in the NIH, there is no official government hand at play. sure that's great. but maybe let's tip the scales a little more toward understanding? 18%? come on. that's a joke.

      on being neuro: i actually work in neurosurgery, so i play the brain surgeon card a lot. many kicks. i do usually explain that i don't do people yet (working up to it). in terms of altruism and masochism, why yes. apparently we HAVE met. :)

  38. Re:Sooo... It's called... by davidsyes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Study the competition (or, in more base terms, know your enemy...).

    Hell, the US is GOOD at out-sourcing, even outsourcing education. Sure, foreign students from abroad attend some of the ivy league (lower-casing intentional) schools here, but many attend in Europe, too. Some even attend here, then SPEND their time in Europe after having had enough of the US, but are still in school and have too many friends here.

    Plus, there are cultural reasons (corruption, leadership by cronies and elders who might not see the logic in empowering their local populations), or other reasons in regions where there's just not enough money and will to outright build new, world-class, competitive, lasting and door-knocking throngs of students. So, they ship them out or allow them to be recruited by US colleges needing cash infusion.

    Do you KNOW how many Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Indian students HERE in the US come from families that put them up in $1,000/month apartments, send them to renowned as well as dubious schools or "academies" that cost $80,000 to $200,000 for maybe 3 or 4 years? LOTS. It's a churning industry, and they keep getting fuller and fuller. Recruiting or otherwise attracting well-off kids whose parents want the brightest futures for their kids. Not saying ALL Asian families are that way, though.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  39. you mean 'real' engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as opposed to "systems" or "software" "engineers" that most of the pissers and moaners are around here.

    1. Re:you mean 'real' engineering by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      India, China and Russia have plenty of "real engineers" too.

      I wouldn't count on PE's and EIT's not getting outsourced.

      They're trying to outsource doctors and lawyers for crying out loud.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:you mean 'real' engineering by MrMarket · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Want domestic job security? Get security clearance. I bet a lot of the "real engineers" are working on things that cannot be outsourced for national security reasons...

    3. Re:you mean 'real' engineering by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      PE getting outsourced? I highly doubt that one!

      Regardless, a lot of the real engineers work in security work

  40. Legal Immigration Issues contribute too by Micrope+Rex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem also lies with legal immigration. As someone with experience in and published a thesis on control systems, I find it impossible to get a dream job without having at least a Greencard. The problem is applying for a Greencard will rob me of at least, at least 5K$ if not about 10K$ (all about the right lawyer, you see). After that, comes the waiting game. How long? About 4 years at least! Longer, normally. So you see, after a couple of years, I am thinking! Heck! Screw this. I am going home. After all research opportunities are much better than what they used to be a decade ago. This reverse brain drain (Trust me, the home country has been lamenting about brain drain for decades) is going to further affect the R&D scope here.

    1. Re:Legal Immigration Issues contribute too by jay42jay · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The way things are going here just throw away your green card and declare yourself an illegal and you'll get citizenship right away. What a f'ed up system but that's what the Democrats are pushing for.

    2. Re:Legal Immigration Issues contribute too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but it's true!

    3. Re:Legal Immigration Issues contribute too by value_added · · Score: 1

      The problem also lies with legal immigration. As someone with experience in and published a thesis on control systems, I find it impossible to get a dream job without having at least a Greencard. The problem is applying for a Greencard will rob me of at least, at least 5K$ if not about 10K$ (all about the right lawyer, you see).

      Don't kid yourself on the "right lawyer" approach. We're not talking about the courts system, but instead, with a giant, understaffed beauracracy overlayed with the politics of the day.

      I went through 3 "super" lawyers[1] and spent far more than your $10K number in legal fees. Not one of them accomplished anything someone repeatedly standing in the (at the time) 15-hour lines in front of the INS building couldn't have done by filling out paperwork themselves, or with the help of a window clerk. The only advantage I can think of with respect to having a lawyer on retainer is that there's a phone number to call in case of Something Bad happening. That's a distinct possibility given the current immigration/security hysteria, and that at any time during the process it's likely you've bumped up against a technical violation of some sort. However, given that you're not allowed to leave the country (unless you obtain parole) during the process, that argument may be overstated.

      As an additional note, political pressure similarly does little when it comes to such a large beauracracy. At one time, I succeeded in obtaining the involvement of both a senator's office and a local congressman into my case. Might have been impressive in other areas, but the letters and phone calls went over like a lead balloon.

      You're right about the time frame, however. I don't know what the current standard is, but when I was applying it was something like a legally-mandated 2 (or possibly) 4 years. It took them 15 years.

      ------
      1. The first two remain unaware of the fact that I've replaced them, and the last (a firm specialising in immigration work for large corporations) still sends me info-type emails on immigration issues. None of them are aware of the fact that I've long since received my green card.

  41. Lawyers and monopolies by pesho · · Score: 1

    You can add monopolies to that. There has been a lot of "consolidation" among the R&D suppliers. The competition in some fields is virtually nonexistent. The worst part is that the attitude of the suppliers is changing accordingly. A friend of mine recently complained about defective product and asked for replacement. What he got was a "shut the f*ck up or we will sue you" letter from their legal department.

    Here is how the pricing usually works: "It costs $1 to make this molded plastic thing. We will price it $108, and if you bother to ask for a discount we will sell it to you for $55. You don't like the price, well go somewhere else? Oh wait, There is no other place we bought them all."

    Most researchers pay up, because they have to do their experiments or they will not get more grant money. Besides, the grant money are coming mostly from taxes and nonprofits, so nobody really cares how they are spent. As a result we do lower quality research that costs more. The only way to cut down costs in the public domain is to import junior scientists from abroad (I am one of those imports, and I don't mind;)) and to use as many grad and undergrad students as you can.

  42. Recently??? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Texas found this to be the case 20 years ago. I attended the Plano Independent School District, and mastered algebra in the 4th grade (with the exception of matrix multiplication, which to this day I still do not remember.)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Recently??? by futuresheep · · Score: 1
      Recently though, Texas had been using Everyday Mathematics. They just pulled funding for it though and it will no longer be used there.

      http://www.nysun.com/article/66711?page_no=1

    2. Re:Recently??? by LordEd · · Score: 1

      with the exception of matrix multiplication, which to this day I still do not remember. Perhaps you should have taken the red pill instead.
  43. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "vastly outclass the rest of the world"? And this gets modded Insightful? Presumably by other Americans.

    And which country is, on balance, more free than the USA?

    The real question is when Europe will stop having such an inferiority complex that it must baselessly bash the US at every opportunity.

  44. Slip slidin' away by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    I wonder when Bodies of Distinguished Scientists are going to make the switch from saying "the U.S. is losing its leadership in Science and Technology" to saying "the U.S. has lost its leadership in Science and Technology." Probably well after the point of no return...

    Anyway, if I were a betting man, I'd be inclined to start a pool.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  45. The World is Flat.... by RobBebop · · Score: 1

    The World is Flat talks about how the American advantage is having a broad education that includes history and literature and art. Is it really a surprise to find that half of the country does poorly in Math and Science when students are encouraged to immerse themselves in a diverse landscape of experiences including sports and music?

    --
    Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    1. Re:The World is Flat.... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      The World is Flat talks about how the American advantage is having a broad education that includes history and literature and art. it really a surprise to find that half of the country does poorly in Math and Science when students are encouraged to immerse themselves in a diverse landscape of experiences including sports and music?


      That's all nice speculation, and no doubt (like much of what Friedman writes) backed by an anecdote or two, but there's little empirical evidence that the US deficiencies in one area of education are offset by US advantages elsewhere.

      Looking at other studies, in the 2003 PISA study, for instance, the US scored right about the OECD average in reading, below OECD average in problem solving, below OECD average in math, and below OECD average in science.

      If one wants to assert that the educational weaknesses in the US in math and science are the consequence of policies that produce strengths in other areas, empirical evidence of that strength would be welcome.

      A more likely explanation for the weaknesses in science and math is a general weakness in education that manifest primarily through inequity. In the science-focussed 2006 PISA study, the US performed below average overall, but had an average proportion of top performers and an above average proportion of poor performers. The study also found that the US had an stronger than average correlation between socioeconomic background and performance, and unusually large gap between performance both of immediate immigrants and the general population and what it refers to as "second-generation immigrants" (what usually in the US are referred to as "first-generation" -- children whose parents are immigrants) and the general population.

      It also notes that US students express a high personal value of science, a high personal motivation to learn science and, despite below average performance, one of the highest levels of confidence in their scientific proficiency of students in any of the studied countries. (Briefing paper here.)

    2. Re:The World is Flat.... by Av8rjoker · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. I think we are spreading ourselves too thin. Being forced to take sewing classes and the like in Jr. High doesn't make much sense to me. Having entered the working world, it is amazing how people have no communication skills despite the required courses in school on the subject. Most people don't have a clue about history, although they were exposed to it throughout school.

      Yes, we have a broad education, but that makes it difficult to excel in one area of interest. It is like we are the jack of all trades... master of none.

    3. Re:The World is Flat.... by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is realistic to collect empirical evidence of the benefits of a diverse education. You failed to mention OECD studies related to sports, art, music, or literature (though, you did touch on "reading", but the two are vastly different).

      In any case... it remains a Theory that diverse education is best. However, the Theory was outlined very clearly by Plato in The Republic and much of his wisdom has served as a pretty descent framework for the American system through the last 200 years or so.

      We might be in agreement that reform is needed. It certainly isn't a good thing for the average student is below average. Teachers in public schools should be paid better to make the profession more desirable.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    4. Re:The World is Flat.... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is realistic to collect empirical evidence of the benefits of a diverse education.


      I think it is realistic to ask that those who defend the US poor performance as a side effect of an education that is better in some other way to show that there is, in fact, an area where the US education is better, not just provide unsystematic, largely unsupported descriptions of fuzzy ways that it might be better.

      You failed to mention OECD studies related to sports, art, music, or literature (though, you did touch on "reading", but the two are vastly different).


      You are welcome to present any study you can find in which the US performs substantially above the average of OECD countries in any area. If you are going to argue that the repeatedly demonstrated weakness of US education in math, science, and problem solving is offset by strengths in other areas, fine, show evidence that these strengths actually exist.

      In any case... it remains a Theory that diverse education is best.


      Whether a diverse education is "best" doesn't even become a relevant question until it is demonstrated that the education that American students receive is somehow demonstrably more diverse, rather than that alleged "diversity" being a fuzzy, ill-defined, undemonstrated excuse waved around to avoid discussing and dealing with the real and demonstrated weaknesses of the US system. (It's also not a "theory" in the scientific sense, or even a hypothesis, without some operationalization of "best"; its simply an statement of ideology.)

      However, the Theory was outlined very clearly by Plato in The Republic and much of his wisdom has served as a pretty descent framework for the American system through the last 200 years or so.


      The "American system"—whether of government in general or education in particular—is in no way based upon Plato's philosophy, and is certainly not based on the model presented in The Republic.

  46. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by Tsiangkun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Science is not anti-religion. We don't waste our time trying to prove religion is false.

    Religion is anti-science. The religous do pick fights with existing scientific explanations, but in a non-testable "god did it" kind of way.

    I don't hate the religious, I pity the ignorant. I see ignorance and lack of education as a more serious threat to this country than any foreign terrorist organization.

  47. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i know its a troll but I'll bite. Science is not anti-religious. As a matter of fact both scientists and theologians are able to reconcile the two fields quite well. Einstein, one of the greatest minds ever known, believed in God (Hence the quote "God does not play dice"). Rather, it's a very twisted fork of religion that is anti-science. I frankly don't give a damn one way or another how you think the universe got started, it has null effect on my daily life. What I do mind is thinly veiled religious cosmology parading as an equivalent to controlled, tested, objective observations of the world around us. Keep your (and by extension, my own) religion out of the classroom, save it for Sunday school.

  48. Size != leadership by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies

    How does that compare per capita (or as fraction of GDP) to smaller, industrialized countries such as Japan or even Denmark? It is no big feat to spend a lot on R&D, when you have a big population...

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  49. it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not a paradox. Look, do we imagine that everybody is capable of being a first class brilliant scientist or engineer? Clearly not. Therefore, if you have a system where the difference between the best and the worst (in any field) is small, then you have a system which fails to promote the best. You have a system where everyone is at the "average" level, and the people who ought to stand out, don't, for whatever reason.

    On the other hand, if you have a system where the difference between the best and the average is high, what does that tell you? It tells you the system works well to promote the best and give them the tools they need to produce. Fact is, there is a natural heirarchy of ability among human beings in any field. Most are at some ordinary level, and only a few are very good. If you don't see the natural ability heirarchy reflected in the accomplishment heirarchy, then something is wrong. Since it's impossible to bring ordinary folk up to the extraordinary level, what must be happening is that the extraordinary folks are being held down (which is fairly easy to do).

    Compare to sports. The difference between your average high-school athlete and Olympic or world-class athletes has never been greater, and the very few at the very top are amazing. Do we look at this pyramid of accomplishment and say, gee, there must be something wrong with how we promote and train people in sports, because there are so few at the top? Because the average 35-year-old pick-up basketball player, measured on the same scale that includes the championship Los Angeles Lakers, sucks? Not if we have any brains, we don't. We realize that the better a system is at sifting and placing people according to their abilities and motivation, the more pronounced the heirarchy, the greater the difference between the best and all the rest. Only in some doofus Lake Wobegon mode of (non)thinking do we imagine that a successful system would look non-heirarchical, with everyone above average.

    The fact that heirarchies of accomplishment are more evident in the United States than elsewhere is no proof that the mass of people are being held down. It may well be evidence that in the United States the best are better able to rise to the top, to find their natural level of achievement, whereas in other places considerations of social class, restrictive groupthink education, or cultural barriers to personal ambition and radical innovation tend to keep the best from ever showing their stuff and emerging above the sea of average folk.

    1. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1
      "It may well be evidence that in the United States the best are better able to rise to the top, to find their natural level of achievement, whereas in other places considerations of social class, restrictive groupthink education, or cultural barriers to personal ambition and radical innovation tend to keep the best from ever showing their stuff and emerging above the sea of average folk."

      It appears that you're supporting my conclusion with supplementary speculative evidence from a slightly different angle.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    2. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Well...I'm agreeing with your argument, but I wouldn't say on the basis of any evidence at all. I've just pointed out that, logically, a steep heirarchy of achievement -- with the best far above the average -- is just what you'd expect from a system that does well at encouraging its best and its brightest to achieve their full potential.

      I've taught science to college students, and I'm a little tired of all the Chicken Little ignorant busybodies who think there's something wrong with them because they don't all excel in science. That's bullshit. Science isn't everybody's cup of tea. In fact, it's really only the cup of a tea of a small minority of people who are unusually masochistic. Science is immensely frustrating to do (as opposed to read about), inasmuch as being on the leading edge means, by definition, that 90% of your ideas and experiments don't work out.

      But that is as it should be. If we all spent our days trying to come up with quantum gravity and explain what happens when you fall into a black hole, who would drive the busses, pick up the trash, deliver the mail, bolt the wheels onto the new trucks, grow wheat and potatoes, and do the other zillion things required to make the wheels of the modern world go around? Or, more precisely, if we all wanted to do science, then since the world needs only a few Merlins per 1000 ordinary knights of the Round Table, most of us would be doomed to a lifetime of unhappiness. Fortunately, our mental programming is not so inflexible and dysfunctional. That is, fortunately only a few of us want to be scientists, and roughly speaking the few who want to be correspond to the few who can be, by virtue of their natural abilities. (It's an obvious truism that people tend to want to do what they're good at.)

      Hence the genuinely useful function of a general education system is not to teach everyone to be an expert in everything (which is impossible and stupid), but to sort people into the right career tracks based on their natural abilities and motivations. We should expect a student to test poorly in all fields except the one or two where he's destined to excel, and we should not treat this as his (or the system's) failure, but as merely a neutral datum that tells him (and us) where his career interests should lie.

    3. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by enjo13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spot on.

      At the end of the day the United States is a tremendous meritocracy. On Slashdot (and it seems everywhere these days), self-deprecation is the order of the day. Yet, the very free-wheeling aspect of American culture that tends to suppress 'academic achievement' is the same force that keeps us at the fore of innovation.

      I've made a very nice career for myself, without a college degree. I've been judged more or less solely on my merits, and in that light I've been able to advance throughout my career. In a more structured society, that's not always the case. For example, my wife is an academic (PhD). She is judged not so much on her merits.. but rather on where she went to school, who she studied with, and a whole host of other factors that have very little to do with her proficiency in her chosen path of study. To the point that someone who went to a certain 'tier' of school has no hope of being published in the top journals, no matter how profound their research.

      I've been fortunate to live and do business in several other countries. My experience is that many of those places look much more like my wifes Academic world, than the merit-based world that I've been in. They all have been wonderful places, and in many aspects better places than in the U.S. But the reward systems have always fallen short of what I have experienced here in the U.S. Some places values age above all else, some value paper-achievement (test scores, degrees, etc..), but very few places value results the way we do. For better or worse, that leads to the highly innovative and resilient economy we have.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    4. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1
      "Or, more precisely, if we all wanted to do science, then since the world needs only a few Merlins per 1000 ordinary knights of the Round Table, most of us would be doomed to a lifetime of unhappiness.

      Don't be too proud of your occupation, science is not some magical field that only a select few can understand and apply, and very few, if any, scientists are actually indispensable.

      "We should expect a student to test poorly in all fields except the one or two where he's destined to excel..."

      Well, if you've taught science, maybe you can explain why we should expect a majority to do worse than average? I may not be a masochist, but I'm fairly certain that's an unlikely proposition. Once upon a time, we at least would pretend that a well rounded individual was the proper goal of the liberal arts...

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    5. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that heirarchies of accomplishment are more evident in the United States than elsewhere is no proof that the mass of people are being held down. It may well be evidence that in the United States the best are better able to rise to the top, to find their natural level of achievement, whereas in other places considerations of social class, restrictive groupthink education, or cultural barriers to personal ambition and radical innovation tend to keep the best from ever showing their stuff and emerging above the sea of average folk. Oh really? So check out these findings on the latest study on social mobility:
      http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm
      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/ksu-mou100107.php
      http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

      Turns out the US is now on the bottom list of social mobility (in developed countries). Good luck keeping those highly talented immigrants in, you'll need them badly as China rises to the top.
    6. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1

      Well, if you've taught science, maybe you can explain why we should expect a majority to do worse than average? I may not be a masochist, but I'm fairly certain that's an unlikely proposition. Once upon a time, we at least would pretend that a well rounded individual was the proper goal of the liberal arts...

      If you have a class where the grades are 50,75,75,85,100, the average in the mean sense is 77, then the majority did worse than average. I don't know that we would "expect" this to happen, as you also ask, but it happens pretty frequently.

      Also, consider that it is not difficult to create a bi-modal grade distribution in a class, where the majority of the class is below average (mean sense): Create an exam that will nominally result in a normal distribution for the class. Then add a really challenging question. Ideally (for a good exam writer), the resulting distribution minus the challenging question, is whatever the original exam was written for, which if you intend a normal distribution still puts a few at the high and low ends. But if you have a few really exceptional (or really lucky, or really unethical) students, then they might have also distinguished themselves with the challenging question. If that is the case, and the distribution of the grades excluding the challenging question is normal, then most of the class will have performed below the average. To see this visually, just draw a histogram illustrating a standard distribution of grades, and add one or two outliers to the right. Of course, the results are rarely this pretty, but that doesn't have to change the expectation that they will be.

    7. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, do we imagine that everybody is capable of being a first class brilliant scientist or engineer? Clearly not.


      While it may seem "clear", this statement is actually not supported by scientific evidence. Quite the contrary.

      Current research shows that "natural ability" is _not_ the reason why some people are so much better than others in a given field (including academic subjects like math as well as most sports). Apparently, nearly anyone could be the best of the best if they devoted 10 years to directed practice. Starting intelligence is not particularly important, so long as one is not retarded.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125691.300

      This field of research is known as "expert performance".
      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=expert+performance&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
    8. Re:it's only a paradox if you're an idiot by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Don't be too proud of your occupation

      Geez, where do you read that into what I wrote? Did you miss the part where I pointed out the essential and equally valuable contribution of the folks who assemble cars, take out the trash, milk the cows, et cetera?

      very few, if any, scientists are actually indispensable.

      Well, the "if any" qualifier is inane. Obviously the giants in any field are indispensable, in the sense that without them their revolutions would be delayed until someone else like them turned up, and if they truly are unique (which admittedly seems impossible) then their revolutions will never occur at all.

      But, yes, most scientists are, as the saying goes, button-sorters and bottle washers. But don't you look too much down your nose at those in the second and third rank. A certain amount of button sorting and bottle washing has to be done for the big ideas to get turned into practical applications that make our lives better.

      Well, if you've taught science, maybe you can explain why we should expect a majority to do worse than average?

      Read again what I wrote. Obviously I did not write that the majority should be expected to do "worse than average" (which is mathematically impossible). I wrote that the majority should be expected to do poorly on the scale that includes at the top the best in the field. That is true in any field. We should expect high-school kids running track to perform poorly compared to the field in the final heat of the Summer Olympics. We should expect your average person noodling around on the guitar to sound like a doofus compared to Eric Clapton. Generally, we do expect these things, in those kinds of fields, and we don't regard them as personal or systemic failures. No one is going around saying that, measured by NBA standards, the average high school kid sucks at basketball, so there must be something "wrong" with the American school phys. ed. system.

      But we do get such inanity in science education, and that's my point.

  50. To those boasting the output of the US by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Take note that a vast amount of US success is driven by foreigners. Which I find somewhat paradoxical myself.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  51. The more we regulate by definate · · Score: 1

    Lets see, the more we regulate, the worse our education system becomes.

    Most of the problems I see with my schooling, comes from enforced equality and government regulation of education.

    It has nothing to do with religion, it's economics.

    China, India and developing countries have quite regulated education, but they also have the drive to succeed. (It's called poverty)

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:The more we regulate by monsterzero2002 · · Score: 0

      "China, India and developing countries have quite regulated education, but they also have the drive to succeed. (It's called poverty)"

      Oh, so maybe what we need then is more poverty. Sounds like the plan the Bush Administration is following.

  52. Atheists are in demand? by Comboman · · Score: 4, Funny
    As we get more people into atheism and computing, the demand for those same people grows.

    There's a demand for atheists? I knew there had to be jobs for philosophy majors somewhere.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Atheists are in demand? by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More than half the people in my Philosophy department were Catholics getting the Phi degree because it looks good when doing Seminary. There was a nice little war between us "free thinkers", and them.

      The point is Philosophy != Atheism.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  53. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

    The comment said America was vastly more free than "the rest of the world", which presumably includes Europe. Exactly who is baselessly bashing who here? In what way do you think any western European country is not as free as America? How about Canada? Japan? Australia? What do you think freedom is exactly?

  54. Re:...and trillions into by Babu+'God'+Hoover · · Score: 1

    How much of the "R&D budget" is spent developing new weapons? Not nearly as much as is spent on inane 'entertainment' and associated facilitating devices.

  55. Hells Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a scientist who went to a good university and understands the basics of economics, this is nothing but good news. When this disturbing trend plays out, I'll have companies knocking down my door to hire me and pay me ridiculous amounts of money to do the "hard" work that I love doing. Sometimes the future is so bright, you need to wear shades.

    But what about outsourcing and the global economy?

    Fuck! Where'd I put my flashlight and that Chinese language book...

  56. Republican? by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

    Gates isn't known for being especially conservative. He was actually a big supporter of the democratic party until all the anti trust stuff got started against Microsoft under the Clinton administration. Even now he contributes to a lot of causes across the board, including Obama's campaign. The only thing he wants that Republicans tout is a free market. Other than that hes basically a liberal.

    1. Re:Republican? by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 1

      I actually read something about Bill Gates appearing with Warren Buffet at a Nebraska university, arguing that taxes needed to be increased on the wealthy. Both of those men, whatever else we may not like about them(I've got nothing against Buffet myself), have very patriotic/pro country views on taxes despite being obscenely wealthy. Neither one seem to have any problem with paying taxes, probably because they love their country and believe supporting is a noble cause. Versus the slash and spend idiots who want to project the image of being patriotic, while not wanting to pay for all the spending they are big fans of.

      --
      Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
    2. Re:Republican? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      No they simply have enough money that it doesn't matter if it gets taxed or not. So they only get $4 billion instead of $5 billion to play around with due to taxes. It's generally the middle class that complains about taxes as they get lumped into the upper tax bracket (barely in some cases) but the extra taxes (and thus lack of income) do have a direct effect on their life style. Bill Gates can still afford his own jet no matter how high the taxes are while those middle class people may need to buy a smaller house as result.

    3. Re:Republican? by MPAB · · Score: 1

      Also, the richest can afford accountants and lawyers which will look for loopholes in the tax system. Hollywood Accounting anyone?

    4. Re:Republican? by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 1

      Given Bill Gates philanthropic endeavors, I think there is more to his desire to see the wealthy taxed than just that. Same with Warren Buffet. Not all rich people in the world only think about their jets. Some of them actually get the need to pay for society and gladly endorse the responsibility of the wealthy. The Bill Gates Sr. mentioned in the following article is his dad, but it's still relevant.

      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0408-06.htm

      --
      Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
    5. Re:Republican? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      My point is that to them personally it doesn't matter and won't really effect them. It's no different from a poor person wanting the rich to be taxed more heavily, they're not effected by it. They could burn half their wealth and still not be able to spend the remainder in their lifetimes (on themselves at least). So instead of giving a couple billion to charity they instead give it to the government.

      The point is that they DON'T have to think about their jets, they'll still have those jets no matter how high (within reason) the taxes are.

    6. Re:Republican? by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 1

      Okay, well, given that it's the wealthy they've argued to be taxed, and many of the wealthy(especially old money) seem to be very much against taxes, I just don't get your point at all.

      --
      Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
  57. Schempeter did precit... by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    that capitalism would not survive, because society can't handle the pace of change. A corporatist / socialist approach would be more likely. Note this wasn't advocacy (he was a champion of the "entrepreneur"), rather it was a projection of the trend he saw.

    Given corporate welfare (car makers, airlines, etc.), lack of anti-trust enforcement, etc. there certainly is an element of this "statism" in the U.S., so you are correct about things being "slowed down" by certain societal & government forces.

    Having said this, there often are good reasons to slow things down: it is arguable that "free markets" are not a natural condition for all aspects of economic life, and society "reacts" to to this by slowing the market down (see Polanyi's classic for more on this one). Society won't let capitalism completely trample its traditions & comforts, and that includes the existing corporate power structure and technologies

    Of course, slowing technological & economic change down costs money. Eventually too much money. Look at farm subsidies. Or import tariffs. etc.

    --
    -Stu
  58. Adjusted hourly rate? by Besna · · Score: 1

    I don't grok.

  59. Cringely addressed this "paradox" by rbrander · · Score: 1

    In his "Triumph of the Nerds" book over a decade back. I don't have a copy handy so won't attempt to quote, but the upshot was that your R&D, your patents, your general technological superiority, does NOT depend on how well most of your kids do in science & math.

    They depend on how well your top 1% of kids do in science and math at the post-secondary, and especially post-graduate, level.

    Not to mention, as others have posted, how many of the top 1% of people around the world flock to your nation to do their post-secondary and grad work, and stay to work in private R&D shops and startups.

    Oh, and dropping a few percent of a $500B military budget on R&D, those tens of billions of government subsidy of high-tech research, they kind of help too.

    So, frankly, you can ignore those poor students. Unless you want them as informed voters or something, or useful as everyday technicians, engineers, MDs etc - for that you might want to do some better science education.

  60. You want a distrubing trend...? by styzygy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    At the Republican debate, when asked "Who doesn't believe in evolution?" FOUR Presidential Candidates raised their hands!

    No wonder science and math education in the U.S. lags against other nations. No child left behind? If these guys are controlling the Dept of Education, I'd prefer my child be left behind to educate herself rather than taken along on the ride that's being offered.

    --
    "I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol."
    1. Re:You want a distrubing trend...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these trends were happening without republicans in the whitehouse. who's your scapegoat now?

  61. Re:No Job Security, High Cost of School, Outsourci by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

    Could you elaborate? What are CS majors getting into? I plan to major in CS :P

  62. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    >would-be oppressors

    And you wonder why mainline Christians think you're morons...

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  63. Atheists tend to buy more tech by Besna · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Even if they aren't working in technology, they help by purchasing the latest technology. Especially as we get into transhumanism, the religious will be less important to the technology economy.

    1. Re:Atheists tend to buy more tech by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Especially as we get into transhumanism, the religious will be less important to the technology economy.

      transhumanism?! you sound like one of the bad guys in "That Hideous Strength". It's Christian science fiction. You might enjoy reading it if religion is something you just don't care about and not something you absolutely hate.

      Do you have any evidence that atheists buy more technology? I wouldn't assume that. My church is full of people with fancy computers and PDAs and other gadgets.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  64. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From experience, the foreign graduate students, on average, are vastly less prepared. Chinese students in particular are very hit and miss. They seem very prepared to repeat a task they've been taught, but absolutely baffled when they're supposed to think up something new.

  65. That depends by spun · · Score: 1

    But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it? Depends on whether that religion's sky-daddy forbids them from kicking back...
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  66. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by sexybomber · · Score: 1

    Oh well, the US is indigenously now a nation of retards.

    I'm a native-born American and most certainly *not* a retard, you ignorant clod!

  67. Censorship by spun · · Score: 1

    4 out of 5 sky-daddies recommend censorship to followers confronted by mockery. The other one recommends stoning.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  68. U.S. Education as a whole is broken... by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...not just science and math.

    First of all, to the people who blame this trend on I.D., give it a rest. Our education system has far greater problems to confront, such as:

    1. Parents - more an dmore parents don't take an active role in their kids' education, and blame the schools for their kids' failure.

    2. Basic literacy - more and more kids cannot even read at grade-level. And we expect them to understand concepts like evolution??

    3. Critical thinking - thanks ot NCLB, kids are taught to take a test, not think for themselves.

    4. Qualified/dedicated teachers - thanks to unions, teachers have little motivation to actually give a shit about whether or not their students are actually learning anything.

    5. No Child Left Behind - the great unfunded mandate that promotes the fantasy that there is no such thing as a dumb, unmotivated kid. One-size-fits-all education only harms good students, and it sure as hell doesn't make the bad ones any better.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:U.S. Education as a whole is broken... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      1. Parents - more an dmore parents don't take an active role in their kids' education, and blame the schools for their kids' failure.


      This is probably a real problem.

      2. Basic literacy - more and more kids cannot even read at grade-level. And we expect them to understand concepts like evolution??


      Literacy-related studies (like the 2003 PISA) show the US at about OECD average, despite being below average in Math, Science, and Problem Solving. This is probably not a source of the US deficiency.

      3. Critical thinking - thanks ot NCLB, kids are taught to take a test, not think for themselves.


      NCLB isn't the sole source of this problem, but the poor results on Problem Solving tests suggest that this is a real problem.

      4. Qualified/dedicated teachers - thanks to unions, teachers have little motivation to actually give a shit about whether or not their students are actually learning anything.


      School principals in the US report more control over hiring, firing, and salary decisions than the average across the OECD, so while qualified/dedicated teachers may be a problem, unionization probably is not the source of it. Ineffective unions, and poor pay and working conditions are more likely factors.

      5. No Child Left Behind - the great unfunded mandate that promotes the fantasy that there is no such thing as a dumb, unmotivated kid. One-size-fits-all education only harms good students, and it sure as hell doesn't make the bad ones any better.


      NCLB may be a problem, but the US in practice has greater gaps in performance than other OECD countries, and an average number of top performers. So while "one-size-fits-all" is a problem, I think it is more likely the widespread perception that those who don't perform well (which, in the US, is more strongly linked to socioeconomic conditions than is the case across the OECD) are "dumb, unmotivated kids" rather than people with different needs that need to be addressed differently is the source of poor overall performance than is any failure to accept that "dumb, unmotivate kids" exist.

      Comparisons to OECD averages from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 study, except where noted from the 2003 study (the 2006 study was unable to report reading results for the US due to printing errors in some of the booklets used for the reading test in the US.)

    2. Re:U.S. Education as a whole is broken... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      So while "one-size-fits-all" is a problem, I think it is more likely the widespread perception that those who don't perform well (which, in the US, is more strongly linked to socioeconomic conditions than is the case across the OECD) are "dumb, unmotivated kids" rather than people with different needs that need to be addressed differently is the source of poor overall performance than is any failure to accept that "dumb, unmotivate kids" exist.

      That's a valid point, but the factors that contribute to the "dumb kids" perception are completely out of a school's control. The question of what a school can/should do with these kids remains. Perhaps we should focus (for now) on recognizing the limits of their potential, given the factors you mention, and making the most of it. Setting unrealistic expections for students only results in further failure and disappointment.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  69. my favorite statistic from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article: "Also, Americans who said the government spends too little on scientific research grew from 34 % to 41 % between 2002 and 2006"

    Of that 41%, how many people do you think write a personal check to a research facility of their choice each year?

  70. Measure R&D ? by sherriw · · Score: 1

    I question how this report measures the R&D spending of other countries? I would hazard a guess that Chinese and Japanese automakers (as an example) would not be quick to reveal the full extent of their R&D budgets. It would be in their government's best interests as well to under report this number to keep the US and others into a false idea of what they should spend to compete. Hell, if I was China/Japan I would under report it so that the US isn't inspired to ramp up R&D funding.

    I also imagine that other countries might not have the same open-accounting rules for public companies...

    Just a thought. Maybe North America is farther behind than we think. Hell... our automakers haven't exactly jumped onto the Green trend that has been glaringly obvious for the last 5 or so years. So if that R&D money has been going into bigger and beefier SUVs then that's money squandered as far as staying competitive goes.

  71. One idea in the aftermath of NCLB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The science crisis has grabbed the attention of the National Science Foundation.

    There is a program here in Illinois for research universities to reach out to rural high schools in chemistry (http://iclcs.uiuc.edu/). We're between our first and second years.

    Whether the program is effective remains to be seen, but if it is deemed successful, the program may become a model for reforming science education in K-thru-12.

  72. Data? by Tony · · Score: 1

    Do you have a data source? I'd really like to know, truly.

    It was my understanding that we started falling behind in the '70s or '80s, but had actually made some progress towards parity near the end of the '90s. Yes, we were still behind, but the decay had been arrested. At least, that was my understanding of reports at the time. That was a decade ago, though, so my memory could very well be faulty.

    I'm actually interested in legitimate data sources.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Data? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Acording to this 2006 US goverment report:

      http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PISA/pisa2006highlights.asp

      US students ability on math and science fell bang in the middle of all participating countries (22 better than the US, 22 worse, 12 similar).

      If you restrict the comparison to the OECD (generally more developed) countries, then the US looks a bit worse with 31 countries doing better, 20 worse and 5 similar.

  73. Wrong by technoextreme · · Score: 1

    The compensation (interms of wages, costs of ongoing education, job security, and work hours) should fit the labor market. For the last 8 years they have been all out of wack and are not paying for itself in America.

    Wages are just fine. My friend is getting paid twenty dollars an hour and he is an intern.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  74. Patent applicants in the US by gingerTabs · · Score: 1

    Not trolling, but has anyone done an analysis of the patent applicants that file from the US? I wonder if this USA expertise is almost entirely based upon an influx of expertise from other countries, rather than relying on the US education system

  75. Attribute not to malice... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm sure they're working hard at it... they also work hard at delivering my mail to my address, but fail this simple task at a non-zero rate. When they can put the letter in the box, such that the words on the two match up - ensuring a successful delivery, then I'll contemplate a governments' ability to herd a populace with evil intent.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:Attribute not to malice... by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure they're working hard at it... they also work hard at delivering my mail to my address, but fail this simple task at a non-zero rate. When they can put the letter in the box, such that the words on the two match up - ensuring a successful delivery, then I'll contemplate a governments' ability to herd a populace with evil intent. Funny you mentioned this. I have a chronic problem with getting my post improperly delivered (receiving someone else's mail or vice versa). I call the Post Office repeatedly to complain, and one supervisor told me that 'there are intricacies to delivering mail.' I told him bullshit -- it involves simply know which street you're on, being able to read the number of the building where you're currently stopped, and reading the item for a match. It involves simple literacy. But I guess civil servants feel the constant need to justify their jobs.
      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  76. I don't think the one causes the other by nickptar · · Score: 1

    Rather, more well-off, educated, cosmopolitan, etc. people both buy more technology and are more likely to be atheists.

  77. Explain by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    The US also leads the world in patent development.
    Interesting - is the patent system developing? Considering that there are so many patent-trolls the patent system doesn't seem to be anything else than a collection of idea-data regardless of obviousness and quality.

    But on the other hand - what is to be expected from a country ruled by the legal departments of companies.

    Some Unused and Probably Unusable references to lawyers by Heinlein. Another more interesting is Mass-murder of all lawyers in 1965 in one of his timelines as it appeared in the book Number of the Beast (p.378).

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  78. true innovation by epine · · Score: 1

    Does true innovation even exist? I constantly stumble across discussions of "true innovation" (mostly the lack thereof) that never manage to define what true innovation would look like if we had it.

    I did discover yesterday some interesting applications of Bounce dryer sheets.

    * Cram one down the filler neck in your car's fuel tank and increase gas mileage by 430%.
    * Tape ten sheets across both of your car's bumpers to prevent accidents--it repels other vehicles.
    * Put a sheet in your dishwasher and your plates will be wrinkle-free.

    And then I found this link from Chemical Engineering News, from which I gleaned the following perky keywords and electrostatically neutral buzzphrase:

    polymers and enzymes, softergents, alcohol ethoxylates, cationic dialkyl quaternary surfactants, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, combination of an alkyltrimethylamine with a fatty acid, monoalkyl quaternary surfactants (quats) or ethoxylated quats, specialty polymers and amidoamines, dispersants and opacifiers, biocides and rheology modifiers, protease and carbohydrase enzymes, manganese-based catalyst that activates percarbonate and perborate bleaches, dye fixative offering dye-transfer inhibition, fluorescent whitening agents, cyclodextrin chemistry to reduce odors, proprietary fragrance with zinc ricinoleate, temporary surface hydrophilicity, silica nanoparticles

    No, no innovation at all. But careful not to breath the fumes of progress as it roars off in pursuit of the silicone nanosphere.

    As Monkhouse once noted, "It got up to 94 degrees today - that's pretty good at my age." Since the era Monkhouse recalls when "safe sex meant a padded headboard" we've since, uh, licked that particular problem three times over. At the end of the day, the only innovation that matters is the innovation people are willing to pay for, and for most of us, what we're willing to pay for hasn't much changed since the CT boundary.

  79. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by megaditto · · Score: 1

    In what way do you think any western European country is not as free as America? Immigration, for one. If some foreign wiz-kid wants to study in the US, it's pretty easy for her to get in, and even get a scholarship. In turn, the US gets all the benefits from her work (research, publications, patents, etc.)

    If a non-European wants to study in Europe, she has to both pay her way AND deal with the immigration roadblocks.

    The result is that the US gets all the best and the brigtest, and is thus by far the largest science producer in the world. Certainly more so than the rest of Europe combined. Here are some recent stats on research paper citations: http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2007allfields.html
    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  80. I Dealt With This Problem Today by ilikepi314 · · Score: 1

    I am a graduate student in physics, and today some of my core courses (quantum mechanics!) got canceled last minute, despite protests from the dept and even college. The administration is filled with businessmen that only think of short-term monetary gains, and so we were one student short of their crazy enrollment requirements (actually not, but they suddenly decided not to include audit students in the count) and they refused to budge. To them, we weren't worth the money. Apparently the dean was told "The course is being canceled, deal with it, now get out of my office." I'm left struggling to find a course because the same thing happened to many graduate courses in mathematics, engineering, etc. I'll probably have to do an independent study, but that's hardly a replacement for a real quantum mechanics course. I feel like my degree program is slowly becoming meaningless because of these administrators. I'm seriously considering applying elsewhere and leaving next year over this nonsense. After all, what self-respecting student would want to come here once they hear about graduation requirements being canceled arbitrarily? All that tells me is that they aren't serious above giving me the education I signed up for.

    If we want to improve science education in this country, we have to reverse that mentality. Unfortunately, I think too many people nowadays think with a quarterly spreadsheet instead of considering the long-term consequences of their decisions. They want to see immediately returns on investment in science, not realizing that isn't how it works. Research may be quiet for a few years then a sudden breakthrough; you can't quantize it on a business schedule. And just because you can't measure progress quarterly doesn't mean it isn't important to do. No one thought of cell phones when we were studying electromagnetic waves, etc., but I think people nowadays would argue cell phones were a great invention. Who knows what the future will hold from seemingly unimportant discoveries made today.

  81. Mod Parent Up!! by goldspider · · Score: 1

    A lot of what you describe is happening here as well. More and more schools don't recognize a valedictorian, because spotlighting achievement, it is presumed, hurts other students' self esteem. Failure is regarded with indifference, as kids move on to the next grade level whether or not they have completed the "required" coursework.

    Our educational policies reward failure and ignore success, and we wonder why kids aren't motivated to succeed.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  82. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by upside · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't need to bash the US, because the US is still it's own biggest critic. This is the sign of a free country. The critics haven't been totally marginalized yet.

    Having said that, as an European I can't help wonder why American culture is so obsessed with "freedom" and "liberty". I've yet to see what you've got we don't. Where is this obsession coming from? Perhaps you can help me here.

    But since you asked, I do have more freedoms, more rights and more privacy. Let me name certain areas. My employer cannot read my email or monitor my Internet usage. I'm free to join my family after 8 hours of work, and cannot be penalized if I refuse to do overtime. Meanwhile Americans have corporations employing spies and using underhanded tactics to monitor their employees. Sure many Americans are "free" to walk out after 8 hours but they'd get fired for it.

    Please write me off now for being a jealous penniless pinko weeny with an inferiority complex.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  83. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by celle · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well when religion decides to stop trying to castrate science maybe the bigotry will end. The partisan politics will end only when the big money does.

  84. Symptom: patent development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The US also leads the world in patent development"

    As if this was something to be proud about... Maybe the kids aren't studying the sciences because they figure, "What's the point? Everything's patented now. If I develop anything, some greedy corporation will go squat on it and prevent it from benefiting humanity."

  85. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they're saying it pays better. Extortion usually does...

  86. Why would anyone smart WANT to go into science? by weston · · Score: 1

    Engineering is still something of a professional occupation, but the economic rewards available to lawyers, doctors, accountants, and management (hell, even real estate as an occupation) are much greater.

    Science? Much worse: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science

    So let's sum up here: interest science and engineering often means lower social status and being mocked/stereotyped, plus these fields are highly competitive and intellectually demanding, but there's decreasing job security and economic rewards relative to other professions.

    Greenspun's got it right. The question isn't why we have decreasing interest in technical careers, the question is what would make someone interested in pursuing one, especially in the current climate.

  87. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm free to join my family after 8 hours of work, and cannot be penalized if I refuse to do overtime.

    Yes -- and that's as high as you can (typically) rise in society. The biggest difference I see between the USA and Europe is that if you want to raise your class and become rich in the USA, it's encouraged, applauded, and most imporantly, perfectly possible. In Europe, it's very, very difficult to become independently wealthy. And if you do want to try, the society frowns on it. It does happen occasionally, but it's very rare.

    The most important freedom is economic freedom.

    But I could list other problems in Europe. There's the guy who was put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts (i.e., denying the holocaust). Then just had that story about the French who mandate how much of discount a business can give (!!). Then there are the naming laws, that state you can only name your child certain names. Then there are the anti-competition laws. Then there are the anti-political party laws (i.e., you can't be a Nazi). Then there are the anti-free speech laws (i.e., banning "hate speech"). I could go on and on.

  88. Cute by Metasquares · · Score: 1

    In our effort to Leave No Child Behind, we've Left The Entire Country Behind. There's a sort of irony in that.

    Although as a researcher, I have to say that the very structure of academia interferes with the ability to perform groundbreaking research as well.

  89. Couple points by tsotha · · Score: 1

    First, these kinds of studies are usually created for a purpose - to get money. I'm too lazy to follow the money trail back to its source, but I'm guessing there's a party that's gonna benefit from increased money - can't tell who until you look at the recommendations. I'm getting more and more cynical about these kinds of "reports", which are nothing more than advocacy research.

    Second, the average student doesn't matter. Well, not in terms of science. It's the top 1% of students that actually matter in terms of bleeding edge science, so measuring the average is pointless. Sure, it's handy to have citizens who are somewhat conversant with the subject, but that's only important for policy-making, not the research itself. I'm not sure if the geniuses are getting more or less attention than they ever did. I suspect it's about the same once they get to college.

    Third, as virtually every other commenter has pointed out, patents are a really lousy measure of scientific progress. Lumping one-click patents in with stuff that's truly innovative makes the raw numbers worthless for anything beyond chest-thumping.

    And finally, I don't think there's a competitive advantage to doing basic science. Of course it's a benefit, in the long run, to the entire world. But purely in terms of competitiveness, it doesn't really do much for you. Basic science requires collaboration with scientists in other countries, since only people who understand the current body of knowlege can do any sort of peer review. So you don't derive much relative military or economic advantage from it.

  90. Re:Sooo... It's called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you KNOW how many Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Indian students HERE in the US come from families that put them up in $1,000/month apartments,...

    Here in the L.A. area, anything less than $1000/month gets you a neighborhood where the street gangs will make you their bitch - but I agree that $1000/month is a very high burn rate.

  91. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by upside · · Score: 1

    I won't dispute the fact that the US is more effective in drawing in the best and brightest. However: - Immigration is a strange measure of freedom - like it applies to people outside the country. While it isn't difficult for whiz-kids to enter the US. How about unskilled laborers and political refugees? Should we also discuss how the US has historically "promoted" freedom internationally? - There are European countries that don't have tuition fees. At any level of education. This applies to foreign students, too.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  92. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    You seem to be neglecting the possibility that someone could be neither ignorant nor atheistic.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  93. It's natural!!! by oktokie · · Score: 0

    I am not surprised!

    Keep paying little $$$ for butt-load of work often staying up late locked up in hot noisy rooms. Not to mention why networking is alternatively known as networking plumbing(because at the end of day you look & smell like a plumber).

    Business type guys have most power and $$$ in corporate environment.

    Plus, business majors are mostly party goers during college years(not much to study really...) compared to any engineering type majors.

    Kids are smarter than you think they are and they already knows where all the $$$, glory, power and pretty woman will go to.

    I am not surprised!

  94. What did you expect? by PPH · · Score: 1
    A nation where a significant portion of the population believes that:
    • the world is 6000 years old
    • we are the center of the univrse
    • The Fintstones is a documentary
    • some invisible, all powerful being really gives a sh*t about how well you grovel in His presence

    And using numbers of patent applications as a metric, given the sorry state the application review process is in is hardly a sound idea. Its a better indicator of the prevelance of swindles and con artists.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  95. Instant mod up! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0

    Amerikans am teh stoopid.

    OK, give me my +5 Insightful, please.

  96. Aintellectualism by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    Yup, those are all good examples of the sort of anti-intellectualism I'm talking about. It goes way back, too. America's cultural heroes, at least as far as practical invention goes, are people like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison who lacked formal education and who succeeded by doing things contrary to the conventional and accepted wisdom of people who had formal education. What does a formal education have to do with intellectualism?

    The biggest problem here, then, is distinguishing true intellectuals from aintellectuals - people who think they are intellectuals, but they ain't. (If "ain't" isn't intellectual enough, that is a symptom of aintellectualism, so regard the initial 'a' as indicating negation).

    Formal education has become the industry of aintellectualism.

    Yes, of course, there are some true intellectuals associated with formal education. There are millions of people working in the industry, and in any large population there will be a few way out on the skinny parts of the bell curve. On one skinny end are the intellectuals, in the bulging middle are the aintellectuals, and on the other skinny end are coaches and department chairmen.

    And we must count the intellectual students who are pressed into the violent hellholes of formal education by law or custom, even though they could teach every class they were ever locked in.

    (Ending sentence with a preposition is completely valid in English, though clarity needs the attendant verb nearby. All grammar and spelling Nazis are aintellectuals.)

    The formal education racket goes way beyond the requirements of Sturgeon's Law, such that they achieve five nines of reliably aintellectual crap.

    "Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are the crowning achievements of aintellectualism. They are bullshit, and normal people know it. If "intellectual" is identified with "bullshit" in the public's opinion, these soi-disant intellectuals have only themselves to blame.

    The word "intellectual" itself must be redeemed. It correctly describes men who live by their minds. "Aintellectual" describes, and is designed to irritate, those who live by destroying minds.
  97. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Science is not anti-religion. We don't waste our time trying to prove religion is false.


    Ignoring Dawkins and numerous others, presumably. Science is not monolithic.

    Religion is anti-science.


    Well, except the vast number of religious people who are also scientists or support science, both lay people and clergy, and the others who are indifferent to it. "Religion" (even "Christianity") isn't monolithic, either.

  98. Re:Wrong - Wake Up to Reality by deweycheetham · · Score: 1

    $20 X 2080/hour = $41,600 (this very high since I have seen "The Lucky" intern getting half that here in the mid west. Entry levels programmers and/or admins are making $12 to start. I see it all the time on the job boards)

    The Long term finical security is poor, the cycle seems to be 3 1/2 year good a years to 1 and a half bad years. Its tuff to raise a family like that. I have personally seen folks submit 3,000 resumes to get a low end computer job at around 40K to 50k because the market is that tight. (after 25 years in the business with 19 years, as an IT consultant that's just the way it is now, chalk it up to personal observations).

    7/24/365 days a year on call ... Woot for joy $41,000/7/24/365 = $0.67 per hours, well you don't like it, do the math yourself.

    Ever take a look at the cost of the technology seminars for continuing education the range fro 1.5k to 8k per pop and you are going to go thru those a couple times a year just to keep current. Maybe your firm will cover the training cost but not usually.

    Just remember, there are postal workers doing the 9 to 5 making 60k a year. Plumbers are doing even better, the same for Electricians and Welders now with overtime. But the It folks don't get paid overtime.

    Ok, so you still want to spend 10k a year at the state university. And what are you going to get at the end of it. You still need to up grade your technology every two years to stay up with Moorse Law. So you better love what you do...

    So you are the best and brightest, what do you think?

  99. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Coryoth · · Score: 1

    I had no trouble getting scholarships to Canadian universities, and getting in was no problem either. I left grad school with slightly more money than I started. And really, I am no whiz-kid, so if I can do it, I'm damn sure that whiz-kids can.

  100. Olbg Bill Hicks on anti-intellectualism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm eating and I'm reading a book. Fine. Right. Waitress comes over to me (chewing), "What you reading for?" Now, I said, "Wow, I've never been asked that. Goddang it you stumped me. Not what am I reading, but what am I reading for? I guess I read for a lot of reasons, but one of the main ones....is so I don't end up being a fucking waffle waitress. That's pretty high on the list." Then, this trucker in the next booth gets up, stands over me and says, "Well, looks like we got ourselves a reader"....It's like I walked into a Klan rally dressed in a Boy George costume or something."

  101. Typical.. by mcscribble · · Score: 1

    Typical U.S 'making-up-for-our-lack-of-intelligence-by-spending-all-of-everyone-else's-money' mentality.

  102. In spite of schools by stewbacca · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    US schools continue to lag behind internationally in science and math education. On the other hand, the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies. The US also leads the world in patent development.
    Sounds like we're doing fine in spite of our crappy schools. Or, maybe being successful on an economic level is really no indication of how good we are in math and science. My guess is it's a little of both.
  103. Re:No Job Security, High Cost of School, Outsourci by deweycheetham · · Score: 1

    The following is the blurp I responed to Post Topic "Wrong". The REQUOTE is a follows:

    $20 X 2080/hour = $41,600 (this very high since I have seen "The Lucky" intern getting half that here in the mid west. Entry levels programmers and/or admins are making $12 to start. I see it all the time job boards)

    The Long term finical security is poor, the cycle seems to be 3 1/2 year good a years to 1 and a half bad years. Its tuff to raise a family like that. I have personally seen folks submit 3,000 resumes to get a low end computer job at around 40K to 50k. (after 25 years in the business with 19 years, as an IT consultant that's just the way it is now, chalk it up to personal observations).

    7/24/365 days a year on call ... woot for joy

    Ever take a look at the cost of the technology seminars for continuing education the range fro 1.5k to 8k per pop and you are going to go thru those a couple times a year just to keep current. Maybe your firm will cover the training cost but not usually.

    Just remember, there are postal workers doing the 9to 5 making 60k a year. Plumbers are doing even better, the same for Electricians and Welders now with overtime. But the It folks don't get paid overtime.

    Ok, so you still want to spend 10k a year at the state university. And what are you going to get at the end of it. You still need to up grade your technology every two years to stay up with Moorse Law. So you better lover what you do...

    So you are the best and brightest, what do you think?

  104. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by megaditto · · Score: 1

    Since when is Canada a part of Europe, genius?

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  105. He didn't say anything about divorce or morality by wsanders · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It single family parents where the parent sits on the couch watching TV and slurping Brawndo all day, vs Finland, where the parent (and maybe even the gov't) is much more involved in the community.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  106. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Coryoth · · Score: 1

    Ah, so Canda has different ways in which is is massively less free than the US? I presume Australia (I know several people who got scholarships to universities there) is also somehow different. Come on, admit you were grasping at straws (I mean really, exactly how is ability to get university scholarships and immigrate a significant freedom). Just in case I'll mention that I also know people who got scholarships to UK and German universities and had no trouble getting into those countries.

  107. You got to a church. by Besna · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thus, you are not worth talking to. Your readings are likewise not worth anything. Bye.

  108. Hiring vs educating by Venik · · Score: 1

    If you have the resources, hiring the best minds from around the world to do your R&D is the most economical option. But the funny thing about money is that today you have it and tomorrow you lose it all in some mortgage industry crisis.

    Consider Russia's recent experience: in the 1980s USSR had some of the best scientists in the world and the vast majority of them were homegrown. In terms of science and technology the Soviets rivaled the most developed nations in the world. While the quality of consumer goods in the USSR left much to be desired due to economic reasons, the quality of their most high-tech products - everything from nuclear submarines to space vehicles - was among the best in the world.

    And then within a couple of years the USSR tore itself apart, its economy collapsed, and its many R&D programs disappeared. Many scientists and engineers left the country, but majority remained, allowing the country to maintain its hi-tech industries and continue developing new technologies.

    Imagine a similar economic crisis in the US and tell me what all those foreign scientists and engineers will do, if the US can no longer pay the top dollar for their services or offer them the best environment for their research?

  109. Re:Wrong - Wake Up to Reality by deweycheetham · · Score: 1

    | 7/24/365 days a year on call ... Woot for joy $41,000/7/24/365 = $0.67 per hours, well you don't like it, do the math yourself. |

    CORRECTION

    $41,000/24/365 = $4.68 per hours. So just what is minimun wage again in the US?

  110. Sure by Besna · · Score: 1

    That's more accurate.

  111. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by novakyu · · Score: 1

    And what's more amazing is the level of standards they need to reach. There is a perhaps understandable double standard in place for almost every institution. For example, in the matter of subject GRE tests, if a domestic student gets a score over a 90% percentile, it's pretty decent. However, for international students, they will often need to get a perfect score even to be considered for admission.

    I have heard explanations as "It's because they practice for the test over and over; it's not really indicative of their aptitude," which may be true. But nonetheless, a significant fraction of graduate students are in U.S. with the admissions standards stacked against them.

  112. Good stuff by Besna · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the upbeat attitude. The real "space race" style program is clearly transhumanism. People have some hang-ups over this, though.

  113. Does trolling count as patent development? by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Does trolling count as patent development?

  114. School system is a joke by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, the school systems in the US are a joke. I can't remember a single occasion where anyone was held back because of inability to understand mathematics or science - rather they are simply pushed through the system holding brighter children back. The reason we fall behind in just about every category is because we're far too concerned with things like self-esteem. Even in colleges today, there are people who aren't grasping some of the most important fundamental elements of computing, but are still pushed through the system.

  115. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by upside · · Score: 1

    I agree with all of your first paragraph. It could be better for startups etc. We're getting an increasing amount of sportsmen with Learjets and open source entrepreneurs selling companies to Sun, but so what? I still get a warmer feeling knowing more people can "make it" on a smaller scale. So I disagree with your second paragraph. Facilitating a few people making it filthy rich isn't worth it. Not everyone can be a millionaire, but we can make university free for everyone.

    We don't have the cult of the self-made millionaire. Personally I'm pretty happy where I am and don't feel a need to "rise up" to earn more. I skip chances to go into management and prefer to do tech stuff.

    Of your third paragraph, I agree with some as being "problems", like the holocaust denial case. Every country has it's sore points, like race in the US. You wouldn't suffer some of the wonkies we have. I love your point about political parties, though. How much actual freedom of choice do you have in that regard? Will your vote matter if you vote for a 3rd party? You have lots of nominal freedoms, but the system robs you of choice. A US single mom may have freedom to choose her job, but she has to work two jobs night and day to support her family. You can vote any party you want, but if it's not one of two it is totally meaningless. It's not the government doing the shafting, but some people are really getting it.

    You've yet to convince me I'm lacking something you have. :) Oh, and how much are you paying for medical insurance? I've met Americans with double insurance to make sure they are covered. I don't need any. My wife's friend is paying about $15K to give birth in the US. We paid nothing to have our baby in a world class hospital.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  116. Apples to Apples??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we comparing apples to apples when it is stated that the US is falling behind? In the US, all students can be enrolled in public schools through grade 12, while in other countries, students may have to pass a qualifying exam to go beyond 8th grade. If ALL of our students are compared to SELECT students from other countries, I would expect that our average high school math and science scores would be lower.

    I have the same question about the US infant mortality. Is the death of that 800 gram 22 week fetus that is an infant mortality in the US an infant mortality in those countries that we're being compared with, or is it called a miscarriage?

  117. American greats? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

    Historically, the U.S. hasn't exactly been a hub of scientific and mathematical innovation. You've got the inventor types like Franklin and Edison, but most of the heavy hitters come from Europe.

    I'm interested in counterexamples to this statement. I can't think of many, but I'll start a list and welcome other people to reply with their additions to it.

    • Claude Shannon, the mathematician and Electrical Engineer of All Electrical Engineers, who did tons of the theoretical legwork behind the digital computer and who single-handedly invented information theory.
    • Richard Feynman, who needs no introduction.
    • Marvin Minsky, father of Artificial Intelligence.

    That's right. Just three names so far. (Or should I add Edward Lorenz to the list and make it four?)

    I suppose you could make the list quite a bit more impressive if you included immigrants. Then you'd have Einstein, Dijkstra, Von Braun, Tesla, Kalman, etc... but though these are examples of the U.S. attracting great minds, they are not examples of American society producing them.

    There are some other impressive names that I can think of (Knuth, Kay), but none of them seem to be quite in the same league as the European greats like Euler, Gauss, Lagrange, Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, etc.

    I'm looking for counterexamples to the suggestion that people born into American society just don't reach that level of greatness. Suggestions for additions to the list wanted.

    1. Re:American greats? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Those three were all prominent in the mid-20th century. It may be as simple as the fact that America wasn't an economic force during the time when much of the "foundational" (Euler, etc.) type work was being done.

  118. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Perhaps to an idiot religion is anti-science. And there certainly are many idiots out there trying to push creationism and intelligent design as fact.

    It would be completely inappropriate to make a blanket statement about some minority group based on the actions of a few individuals so why is it acceptable to do this with Christians?

    There's no reason whatsoever why a person can't be religious and completely believe in science. There's nothing in the bible that contradicts science. Most scholars have accepted the bible to be figurative. Because a few idiots have decided to believe in a literal interpretation doesn't mean all Christians believe that. Not to mention that the Pope has accept evolution as a fact.

    What we have going on in the United States is a vocal minority trying to make themselves relevant. The creationists have seen their institution being undermined, so what's their solution? To undermine the institution they see as one of their biggest threats, science.

    As for the atheists who are condescending in their view of anyone who believes in a higher power; you can make all the rationalizations you want about how there is no God. But the fact is that although I can't prove there is a God, it is impossible for you to prove he/she/it does not exist. I myself prefer to err on the side that something does exist.

  119. mike for president 2024 by mikeru22 · · Score: 1

    "In 2006, Americans expressed greater confidence in leaders of the scientific community than those of any other institution except the military. On science-related public policy issues, including global climate change, stem cell research and genetically modified foods, Americans believe that science leaders, are knowledgeable and impartial and ought to be influential."

    Hell, I think everyone should go to school for engineering.

    There's always the saying: "The lowest 5% of engineering majors switch to business and become the top 5% of their class."

    Mike for President 2024

    --
    Go study.
  120. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    I can not prove that my closet is not a portal to another universe.

    I can not prove that my backyard is free of purple and green unicorns.

    I can not prove that god does not exist.

    So ? Why would anybody waste their time trying to disprove the existance of things for which there is no evidence of existance in the first place ? The only evidence one can have for the non-existence of something is the non-existence of evidence. There is no evidence that God exists, therefore that utter lack of evidence provides us with evidence that God does not exist.

    Religion causes people to reject knowledge and embrace ignorance.

  121. Did they bother to breakdown, by nationality ... by tyrione · · Score: 1

    those Scientists working at US Companies doing the work in order for them to file Patents? I wouldn't be surprised to see most of them are Foreign.

  122. Atheism and computing by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

    As we get more people into atheism and computing, the demand for those same people grows.

    Where is there a demand for both atheism and computing? I want to move there today, before Slashdotters drive the property prices up.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  123. Re:Sooo... It's called... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Here in SF, $1,000 will get you a rat hole. It's repugnant that for $825 I was in a lease of a unit that had:

    -- tilted flooring,

    -- a hole under the radiator through which mice or rats would emerge,

    -- kitchen cabinet doors so overpainted as to be unable to shut without slamming (and then slamming would rip out the hinge screws),

    -- screens non-existent (so bugs would fly in),

    -- an airway so dust-filled as to be a wonder my computer didn't short out),

    -- a window-situated garbage that would back up,

    -- a toilet that had a leaky seal in the flooring (so water, (clear fortunately) ended up leaking to the transition strip of the bathroom entry)

    -- a shower having doors that slid shut or open on their own (so, I had to de-rail one from the track, and ended up gouging the lower track...)

    -- a bath tub which could not hold water

    -- closets too oblong to be useful, and too high to use without a chair

    -- a radiator that would be shut of most of the year, and then hissed like hell, so much so (louder than my 1999 Gateway computer p/s & CPU fans) that I had to use ear-covering headphones with high music to drown out the hiss)

    -- a window that wouldn't open or shut without extreme effort

    -- a bathroom and a bedroom window that were screwed permanently closed

    -- unit having tons of pre-1930's paint (the building was built before (or just after?) the big quake (1906ish), and the manager was proud that it survived the 1989 quake and that the firefighters were amazed that it had suffered not structural damage (this, being near Union Square)

    This, I feel is TYPICAL of raggedy-assed properties in San Fransideshow. It's appalling and embarrassing and it's a travesty that to get into NEW structures costs some $1500 or more if they're not government set-aside units for low-income. It's amazing that all the money this government and the wealthy have for funding wars around the world is not being spend on war against blight rental units.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  124. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by Manchot · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't American graduate schools admit more domestic students? A good portion of graduate research is funded by the federal government, and I think it'd be unfair to the taxpayers if domestic students weren't given preferential treatment.

  125. Re:Sooo... It's called... by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 1

    Where? I was living in a clean and perfectly acceptable unit in the inner Sunset (right near the N-Judah) for $700 a month. The floors were level, the rooms were spacious, the plumbing modern, and it even had a fire escape/balcony.

    Yeah, it's not downtown, but it was right on major transit lines (on the N-Judah and the express bus lines, and a few blocks from the cross-park bus lines) and had everything I needed. If you want to live in a "hip" or "cool" neighborhood you have to pay for the location, but if you are looking for an affordable and perfectly functional place then there are plenty in the Sunset/Richmond area.

  126. My Science Education: Self-Esteem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My science education from grades 5-8 consisted of learning to call each other by their first names, feeling good about learning science, organizing our teams into pre-defined roles regardless of the usefulness of those roles in the actual assignment, and then maybe 5 minutes of science work. I believe I learned more about science reading sci-fi books during those years than being in any of those classes. This complete waste of my time was one of the reasons I started teaching myself how to program in 6th grade. Useless science curriculum like mine are the reason the US is so far behind in science. Most of my 10th grade science was spent learning the specific design of the state mandated science test. We learned nothing except how the test was designed, how it would be administered, and what we should do to do well on the test. Any real learning was saved until after the exam was taken, but before it was time to start "studying" for next year's exam. This was all in a small suburb in Connecticut, filled mostly with middle-class white families. A few years after I left someone felt that "diversifying" our school system by bus-ing in inner city kids would help somehow. Having been back to visit some of my teachers since then I and (they) have seen the district continually being dragged down and ripped apart by the new problems of gang violence and racist agendas which weren't there before.

    Let's start focusing on teaching rather than feeling good about ourselves.

  127. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitter, depressed American damning all! Wow dude, just from reading your grammatically incorrect 'journal' to your various rants - I'd say see your doc to get some happy pills. One clinical depressive to another... You also might want to see if they can prescribe anything for your also apparent detachment from reality.

  128. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by megaditto · · Score: 1

    The question was about ways in which America was more Free than the countries in Western Europe.

    My answer is that America allows much greater levels of immigration in general, and skilled immigration in particular. Immigrants receive greater welcome and are significantly better integrated.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  129. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by gelfling · · Score: 1

    For the same reason the UNC public university system is openly biased against instate students. It's about the money. $24k/yr vs $8k/yr. The UNC system has said they want to increase the out of state enrollment to 50% of the total. Now of course they're not going to spend 25% more in capital improvements to keep the number of instate students whole.

  130. 700 layoffs at LLNL, 1000 layoffs at Applied Mater by heroine · · Score: 1

    Tower Semi: 100
    Marvell Semi: 400
    Bristol Myers: 4300
    Abbott: 1200
    Dow Chemical: 1000

    Why would anyone want to go into science & engineering?

  131. I'm sure this will be interpreted as me trolling.. by thesolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, I assure you I am not.

    I honestly believe that the US would not be lagging so far behind in sciences if we finished converting fully to the metric system.

    An acquaintance of mine is taking his first college-level physics class, and the professor stated on the first day that since this was an exact science, there would be no use of US customary measure, only SI units. More than half of the class was simply unaware of what these non-customary units were, and as a result, they spent a week's worth of courses going over grams, litres, metres/kilometres, etc., all the while the students bemoaned having to learn a "foreign" unit of measure. I can even recall something similar happening in my high school physics classes. What a waste!

    If we're going to teach our kids to be proficient in math & science, the least we can do is give them a Base-10 system of measure with no fractions and simple conversions.

  132. Immigration, Family values and education by Bytal · · Score: 1

    Speaking from first hand experience I am certain that family values play THE MOST significant role in raising educational levels. And I don't mean that religious values crap, I mean the value that your family places on education and learning. My experience is with eastern european immigrants from the 70s-90s. They placed a huge value on education seeing it as something that will improve their economic status. I know of Russian adults who in their 30s and 40s, without speaking a word of English, would enroll in college, to learn a completely different profession. The worst thing a child could do was not loose a game or start dating, but bring home a B. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every family in this demographic, but by and large grades and doing well in school were the overwhelming preoccupation of these parents and they made sure to force their kids to behave the same way. Comparatively, asian parents would force their children to study just as hard if not harder, but would opt for more entrepreneurial, small business jobs themselves. Both groups saw education as the best way to raise their economic status. Comparatively, 2nd or 3rd generation families would place less importance on getting good grades and more on fitting in socially, establishing wide social networks and making sure to associate themselves with the jocks, the rich kids and other already socially successful people. I don't know whether its cultural, an artifact of coming from countries with huge emphasis on a technical education or lack of options but in my experience a lot of immigrants were often a lot more concerned about grades and education then those who grew up in the States.

  133. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by novakyu · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'm not saying that the double standard is wrong. In fact, as a domestic student who would benefit from such a double standard, I heartily endorse it, for what it's worth.

    I am just saying, that there is such a double standard. I'm simply stating a fact.

    And by the way, foreign students are not eligible for much of the federal funding, they only "get" federal funding in the secondary sense---international students get private grants that are available for everyone, which forces some domestic students who might have gotten that private funding to be supported through federal funding. And there are a lot more restrictions on international students with F-1 visa, such as the amount of hours they can work (as TA) and so on.

    I am not saying all these discriminations are either wrong, or entirely unfair, but if only to keep ourselves honest, we ought to acknowledge that it exists.

  134. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by upside · · Score: 1

    Oh, can't resist re. "The most important freedom is economic freedom" ... tell that to a US citizen being taken to a concentration camp in Guantanamo as an "enemy combatant". ;) On a more personal note, I'm taking my family to the States when visiting a friend, and have to face the humiliation of having them fingerprinted like a bunch of criminals. There's freedom for you. Come to Europe, no fingerprinting or danger of concentration camps here, promise!

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  135. A wise investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That $340 billion does more when you hire people who are willing to get paid less from other countries.

    Not that we're thinking of our own future and self-sustainability ...

  136. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    When you speak of your freedoms you are speaking of consumer freedoms. These are freedoms you have as a consumer, a wage-earner, an employee, an average citizen who simply inherits his social setting and wants to enjoy it, not particularly change it.

    In the United States you have more producer freedoms. More freedom to change the world around you to make it suit you. You can start a new business more easily. You can start a new line of business (e.g. Amazon.com) more easily. You can live in an eccentric way that would annoy or appall most of your right-thinking neighbors more easily. You can get a peculiar education that suits your own desires, and which most of your neighbors would find crazy, more easily. You can be elected to leadership positions with outlandish ideas more easily, and it's easier to change the dominant paradigms. The United States is far more heterogeneous than Europe (which I say having traveled and lived extensively in both). That means it's easier to find a little corner that thinks like you, and to try to expand it. (most of the time you won't, of course, but certain crazy people -- Americans -- really value the chance to try.)

    Which kind of freedom you prefer is a matter of individual taste, not a question of right or wrong. As a rule, those who prefer consumer-citizen freedoms do indeed prefer Europe. Those who prefer producer-revolutionary freedoms prefer the US.

  137. Re:Of course, half the graduate students are forei by Mark+Gordon · · Score: 1

    Let's be honest. There isn't a lot of money in science. Most smart US-born kids who are strong in science are going to follow the dollars and the social prestige and go to med school, not grad school. The foreign students are often going to grad school in the US in hopes of being able to stay, and that's why they're willing to put up with the low wages and long hours in the sciences, both the "dignified poverty" of grad school and the less-than-stellar wages and shaky job security once they get out.

    Of course, it might be argued that one reason there's so little money in science is that US universities are producing more PhDs than the economy can realistically support, and some of that is due to the presence of so many foreign grad students.

    For now, the US is reaping the benefits of brain drain from other countries, and the relatively poor quality of science education for US-born students consequently doesn't have much of a real impact.

  138. Re:Sooo... It's called... by immcintosh · · Score: 1

    A lot of it is also just a matter of looking around. Some people try to pawn off some awful crap for a lot of money in the housing market around here, regardless of location. I always recommend using a paid for apartment searching service (usually about $100 with a refund if you don't find an apartment), as they've always turned up apartments that are both nice and cheap for me.

  139. Some research univerities are also to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What about the "good high school" students in the United States, who ARE interested in math and science? Are they getting the necessary training in college?

    Are research universities in the U.S. actually training the next generation of researchers, or are they relying on foreign students who attended foreign colleges for their undergraduate training, and then immigrating to the United States to do high quality graduate level research?

    The problem is that undergraduate students in the United States who are attracted to research universities, and who presumably are attracted to becoming the next generation of researchers, aren't getting the training and attention in their undergraduate years, despite paying premium prices. Just look at this research-oriented university:

    http://www.epinions.com/content_73675148932

    Likewise, an article in the Stanford Report by Ray Delgado (published May 19, 2004) admitted that Stanford's faculty were apathetic towards undergraduates:

    Acknowledging that undergraduate advising and mentoring programs at the university fall "below the standards" set in other undergraduate education reforms, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman announced several new initiatives that should significantly alter the experience for students and their advisers. ...
    Although he emphasized that many students and their faculty or staff advisers enjoy good advising experiences, Bravman cited a number of issues that have contributed to disappointing experiences for many.
    -Faculty participation in advising has dropped from as much as 48 percent in the late 1970s to 12 to 15 percent today, partly due to ever-increasing demands on their time.
    -Some advisers complained that they were matched with groups of students with nothing in common with each other or their adviser and felt uncomfortable participating in the standard socialization events. He said some faculty also complained about having too much information to digest when they became advisers. ...
    [Vice Provost Bravman said] "I think 15 percent is just a number that we should not be happy with. As a reasonable goal, I would love to get back to the point where we have half of our advisers who are on the faculty."

    Meanwhile, faculty members have no trouble (or lack of time) to pursue their own interests, such as consulting for companies that sell services to Stanford. An article "Campus Brawl" by Deborah Gage (June 8, 2004) reported:

    Stanford has spent more than seven years transferring its financial systems onto applications from Oracle called Oracle Financials. The project was supposed to be finished in 1999
    . ..
    Stanford has spent a lot of money on software and still has work to do. According to the university's annual budget plans, the board of trustees since 1999 has been asked to approve $93.4 million in capital expenditures for applications and infrastructure. The trustees had approved $60 million in 1994 to overhaul Stanford's entire administrative information systems, a project they expected would take five years, even though controller Susan Calandra says some of the projects in the original plan were never started.
    What makes Stanford's troubles all the more ironic is the institution's proximity to Oracle and PeopleSoft. Stanford, with its gracious red-tiled roofs, and Oracle, with its gleaming metal-and-glass towers, sit just 10 miles apart along Route 101, the main thoroughfare through Silicon Valley. Three Stanford professors serve on Oracle's board of directors...

    Serving on the board of directors is a paid position (at the very least $30,000 annually). Isn't it convenient that there are three professors paid by Oracle to serve on its board, and that the university then paid Oracle for $93 million of services? Apparently, the university's president John Hennessy i

    1. Re:Some research univerities are also to blame by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      You clearly have a mammoth-sized chip on your shoulder against Stanford. Having attended an upper-tier state school, I can say that most of the complaints you level at Stanford faculty are pervasive among the better research universities. I'll also add that I don't think it's as bad as you describe, at least with regard to the education one receives. When it comes to Stanford in particular, the price premium isn't due to the quality of instruction, it's charged because attending Stanford affords one the opportunity to hobnob with faculty who are eminent in their fields and students who, compared to a random sampling of upper-tier state school students, are more likely to do something "impressive" after they graduate. Also because having the Stanford "brand" one one's diploma, for better or worse, means more to some people than "random upper-tier state school".

    2. Re:Some research univerities are also to blame by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I will add that if a student considers himself "very interested" in post-graduate education, and feels like he has the chops to "perform" academically regardless of the undergrad institution he attends, that it's almost certainly a better investment to attend an upper-tier state school if that's possible without paying tuition comparable to Stanford's. For instance, if the student's home state is Mississippi then he's going to have to pay out-of-state tuition to attend a Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Berkeley, Maryland, etc., and some of those schools' out-of-state tuition approaches Stanford levels. Assuming a post-graduate degree is in the student's future, the institution awarding *that* degree is the only thing that's going to matter long-term.

  140. Whatever! by tacokill · · Score: 1

    For anything remotely technical or digital, you will quickly run afoul of current IP Laws. In other words, they would sue you into oblivion. And if they don't....well, that means you aren't big enough yet.

    THAT is the real reason it is very very difficult to break the status quo and do what the GP laid out. It's so absurd that you can make something "work" in your basement but as soon as you try to capitalize on it....here come the attorneys with all kinds of arcane reasons why you can't do what you just did in your basement.

    Look no further than Vonage for an example. History is littered with companies like this. Companies who could build a better mousetrap but are not allowed to because they will inevitably have to use functionality that is locked up in some stupid, overly broad patent. Of course, the root cause there is the patent system. But if you start your own company, you are subject to that system. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not.

    I think it's easy to say "well go start your own company if you think it sucks" but in actual practice, it rarely happens on anything but a small scale.

    1. Re:Whatever! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      For anything remotely technical or digital, you will quickly run afoul of current IP Laws. In other words, they would sue you into oblivion. And if they don't....well, that means you aren't big enough yet.

      Exactly right. And if you aren't very big, you aren't changing much. Changing the current mobile-device landscape requires a lot more resources and money than someone working in his garage. This isn't something Joe Slashdot can do on his own, even though he sees the need and the market. There's too many entrenched players involved who don't want things to change very quickly.

      Personally, I would like to eventually become one of those guys working in his garage full-time. However, part of my strategy is to remain small, and only be involved in tiny niche markets. That's how you stay out of legal troubles with IP. But I'll never be responsible for any big, society-changing technology that way. For me, that's fine; I really don't care about changing the world, I just want to make myself comfortable and stop working for "the man", and I abhor the thought of being the head of some big company, and not being personally involved in the detailed work. But my point is that the comment that the GGP is free to start his own company etc. is massively ignorant of basic economic barriers to entry in large markets.

    2. Re:Whatever! by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Actually, I started my own company in a highly technical and heavily patented area in a very large industry. Almost literally in a garage (warehouse space with a garage door). We are doing quite nicely. People who believe big companies hold all the cards or that patent law only works for the rich are buying the lie that big companies want you to believe. You've lost before you've even tried. To say I'm ignorant of economic barriers is pretty silly. I've seen them and raised the money and personnel to overcome them. I've learned enough about patents to be able to write them (I probably understand the art better than the big companies). And I've developed new, unique technology that can compete head to head with the big boys. The real barrier that stops people is they want risk to be safe. They aren't willing to risk failure and just want the magic formula for success. No such thing, so people stay where they are. Hey, if they want to be safe working for someone else, I'll respect that choice. It's not for me. I quit my job and worked without pay for a year. That's what most people won't do.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    3. Re:Whatever! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I guess it's about risk vs. reward. There's much less risk if you go into some small niche industry where you're not competing directly against big companies, so why bother, unless the reward is huge, and much higher than going an alternate route with less risk. Plus, as you said, you have to raise a lot of money to overcome these barriers. Not everyone has access to capital like that; it's a lot easier to start a business in a new niche industry where the competition is small or nonexistent.

  141. i feel like charlton heston by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    being accused of wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment

    man the weird trolls you meet on teh intarwebs

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  142. you've never met religous engineers? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    They exist, met a bunch when I was a kid. I don't think the fact that faith is part of their lives means that they can't come up with technical solutions to real world problems. They certainly don't expect god to design for them.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:you've never met religous engineers? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Just don't ask them to work with genetic algorithms.

    2. Re:you've never met religous engineers? by rohan972 · · Score: 1
    3. Re:you've never met religous engineers? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      He looks like a special case, since he's one of those christians who believes that science is a way to learn about God's creation, whatever that may be (including evolution), and not one of the dogmatic ones who believes everything in the bible is literally true.

      However, this makes him an exception, not the norm, here in the USA. The fundamentalists are the normal "christians" here in the USA; they're the ones that not only make the most noise, but also have the most power in elections. Other non-fundie christians keep popping up, claiming that the fundies are only a small minority of christians, and people shouldn't get confused and think they represent all christians, but that's a big lie. The snake-handlers, for instance, are a small minority. But Christian fundamentalists are either a majority of christians, or very close, as evidenced by their power in the national elections. They were a major force in getting Bush elected (and re-elected), after all.

      Of course, it goes without saying that this is not the case at all in other countries, where there's plenty of christians, but fundamentalists are extremely rare. Christian fundamentalism is largely an American phenomenon for some reason, and the sooner that the rest of Americans recognize and deal with this, the better.

  143. Re:I'm sure this will be interpreted as me trollin by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    I honestly believe that the US would not be lagging so far behind in sciences if we finished converting fully to the metric system.


    We'd also probably have more (chicken) eggs if we could just somehow produce a whole lot more chickens, first.

    (To be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it works both ways: I think we'd be more likely to convert fully to the metric system if the average level of math/science proficiency were higher.)
  144. The difference that you're missing by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    I've yet to see what you've got we don't....My employer cannot read my email or monitor my Internet usage. I'm free to join my family after 8 hours of work, and cannot be penalized if I refuse to do overtime. Meanwhile Americans have corporations employing spies and using underhanded tactics to monitor their employees. Sure many Americans are "free" to walk out after 8 hours but they'd get fired for it. The difference that you're missing is that corporations are run by Americans too--rights and freedoms do not just apply to workers. In the U.S. the power of companies derives directly from the personal freedoms of the owners and management of the corporation. If they don't want to pay someone anymore, they can just fire them. If they own the computers, they can decide how they are or are not used. At the same time, workers have every right to quit or to choose not to take a job. If they want to use a computer they are free to buy their own and use it as they see fit.

    The freedoms are distributed more equally between business owners and employees than in many European nations. This is one reason why it far easier for Americans to start and grow new businesses than it is in many EU nations. When Americans talk about "the land of opportunity," a big part of what they mean is the ease with which one can start a new business--which is one of the best ways to create wealth for yourself. Americans are good at starting and growing businesses. But for that to work, business owners need rights and freedoms too.

    And I think you're exaggerating the problems with corporations in the U.S. Not every company spies on its workers, is draconian about computer use, and requires overtime. The vast majority of businesses in the U.S. are responsibly run and are good places to work. And one of the great things about the entrepreneurial freedoms here is that it improves competition for worker talent. If IBM treats its workers like garbage, there are hundreds of other computer companies of all sizes they can go work for.
    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  145. Are you suggesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are things more fun than kicking religous people?

  146. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes -- and that's as high as you can (typically) rise in society. The biggest difference I see between the USA and Europe is that if you want to raise your class and become rich in the USA, it's encouraged, applauded, and most imporantly, perfectly possible. In Europe, it's very, very difficult to become independently wealthy. And if you do want to try, the society frowns on it. It does happen occasionally, but it's very rare.

    It seems that you inadvertently touched the point where the European and American perspectives clash. It's not how easy or hard it is to become wealthy but the very perception of what being wealthy means.

    What struck out from the beginning is your implicit obsession with money, as if it is the dominant objective in mind. Being successful means not only stockpiling the most money but also showing it off the most extravagant exterior signs of wealth. Another incomprehensible detail is how Americans perceive class as being showing off as many exterior signs of wealth as possible. That means that in america a character like Paris Hilton is seen as classy and successful, when the truth is that a character like that is nothing more than cheap white trash. Just because you can afford real diamonds instead of plastic trinkets or you live in a suite instead of a trailer it doesn't mean you are any more posh. Yet, somehow Americans perceive her, and others who emulate her, as successful, posh people. Even as role models. Europeans aren't obsessed with material wealth as Americans are. Europeans do enjoy consumerism and do buy a lot of stuff but Americans just act like that was their sole purpose in life. Well, that isn't healty at all.

    The most important freedom is economic freedom.

    Indeed and yet again Europeans do have more economic freedom. Europeans do pay a lot of taxes but those taxes are used to fund basic, fundamental services that benefit the entire fabric of society. The public health service is an European institution that pretty much defines if a society is civilized or not. The public education system is also an European institution. As soon as no citizen is barred from progressing academically (which does more to climb the class hierarchy than money) due to economic constraints or receives a de-facto death sentence due to being poor, the entire society benefits. It constantly amazes me how a society can accept the idea of success and even the concept of life and death can and should depend on the money you make.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  147. Re:Sooo... It's called... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Yep, the thing is to NOT be in a hurry moving. Now, I'm renting an in-law-like room. $400/month, so I can resume dealing with debts.

    But, personally, I don't believe in "old charmers" or other snow-job descriptives. I realize that new-construction materials-loaded structures have formaldehyde and other heinous chemical treatments, but, to me anything with lead paint, rat infestation, old-world (US pre-1985) construction, cheapo-gymn/manufacturing-floor-like carpets and new walls inside code-condemnable buildings is just shameful. Sadly, it's just to expensive for owners, unprofitable to undertake. And, the greedy city and counter governments would just relieve the building owners of more or new taxes, ostensibly to socially care for the homeless/etc. I'm only grousing because my one-time (~3-years held) home was new, from the ground up, and I watched her go up almost every weekend. ... Someday, Someday, but not in california, ...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  148. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by KKlaus · · Score: 1

    >>Science is not anti-religion...I don't hate the religious, I pity the ignorant. I see ignorance and lack of education as a more serious threat to this country than any foreign terrorist organization.

    You don't see ANYTHING you might be doing that would strike religious people as confrontational? Anything ending in ondensation and starting with a c? I'm not defending anyone's willful ignorance, but you're being disingenuous. You can't walk around telling people that they're more dangerous than al Qaeda and act like that's not an attack. And for what it's worth, science IS anti-religion. It may not have been in Newton's day, when it wasn't obvious that natural laws made omnipotence at best unnecessary, but in the 21st century, science is very much anti-religion. You just can't have any sense of the merit of the scientific method and look at the number of mutually exclusive religions, all with equal supporting evidence (read: none), and not come to the conclusion that the question of "Does God exist?" is totally a wash. We just don't have any information on it. And if you believe that, and someone believes (and moreover lives their lives based on) something else, you are simply and fundamentally at odds, and that's just the end of it.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
  149. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having said that, as an European I can't help wonder why American culture is so obsessed with "freedom" and "liberty". I've yet to see what you've got we don't. Where is this obsession coming from? Perhaps you can help me here.
    I also find it a bit of a mystery. It seems to me that reminding the general US population of their 'freedom' and 'liberty' at every possible opportunity helps to avert attention from the steady erosion of these principles under the guise of the 'war on terror' (e.g. the patriot act); maybe repeating the 'freedom and liberty' mantra helps ease the slide into totalitarian state?
  150. Re:Sooo... It's called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a teacher in Korea, so I am, at least somewhat, familiar with the Korean perspective on education.

    The school day runs for about 7-8 hours a day (M-F). There are half-days every other Saturday. Following school during the week, parents will often ship their kids off to private academies for math, science, English, music, etc. Hence, the typical elementary age student arrives home around 7 or 8 pm. The typical middle or high school age kid sometime around 10-11 pm. Yes, most of this time is spent in school. Then, during their breaks from school (winter, summer, and other breaks), these kids often attend private academies for most of the time they're out. This doesn't include the additional private lessons which parents line up. Parents can easily spend a $1000+ a month on these private academies. And as the child progresses through school, these fees get higher and higher.

    So, not only are these kids spending most of their days in school, but the parents are incurring massive amounts of debt. Because of the cost of raising one child, most families are limiting themselves to one child now. This has caused a plunge in the birthrate to something close to 1.2 per family. They can't maintain their population at this rate. This doesn't include the stress placed on children to succeed in their studies, and as a result a high suicide rate.

    So, while the Koreans do place a lot of emphasis on education, I would argue its more harmful than good.

  151. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by KKlaus · · Score: 1

    >>cannot be penalized if I refuse to do overtime.

    That would be an example right there. I'll give you that as consumers, we are very much the same. But the number and scope of laws that restrict your employers (to give one example) is far larger than in the U.S. Remember, businessmen are people too, and individual freedom is not the only type of freedom. Economic freedom is important too.

    That, and although I don't know what nation you're from, I'm betting you can't own a handgun. So we've, uh, got that one on you too.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
  152. Um .... Duh?!! by CyberLife · · Score: 1

    "For example, US schools continue to lag behind internationally in science and math education. On the other hand, the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies. The US also leads the world in patent development."

    This is surprising? I suppose one could think so if they are expecting said patents and R&D activity to have scientific intent. In my experience, most patents and R&D activity are for commercial purposes. They exist to make money. The science is just a means to that end, rather than the end itself.

  153. Why the decine and what it means for us by Scotman · · Score: 1

    There are two points I have not seen in the many posts on this so far: 1. Is a possible reason. As I grew up I had it said to me a few times that the money was in areas like being a doctor. Has anyone else run into this? You get told that being a doctor gets you allot of money and is not as hard. This alone may be the reason. We promote other fields to our young. When was the last time you hear someone say, "Become a engineer and make lots of money". 2. Next is what this means for the US. We are the leaders in these areas because of what your fathers did. THEY studied these subjects and MADE us a leader. If we are not studying to stay the leaders here the leader will shift to another country as it will be them that have trained people, not us, as our experts will have grown old and died off. This point may not be seen by some that are used to thinking in time spans that are too short to see this. 100 years form now, do you think we will still be the leader if this continues?

  154. Stupid to compare IT and Engineering by technoextreme · · Score: 1

    So you are the best and brightest, what do you think?

    Im thinking it's idiotic to try and compare engineering with information technology.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  155. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by megaditto · · Score: 1

    An, then this kind of reasoning appeals to you, apparently:

    Question: Which number is greater: x+1 or y?

    Answer: y is greater
    Reasoning: there is no evidence that x+1 is greater than y, therefore, the opposite is true.
    --

    Do you get it? There's just no way to tell for sure either way. Your answer depends solely on your belief.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  156. Broad trends versus micro events by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    An old story. Trends versus anecdotal events. Broadly, more and more US students are falling below the optimal acheivement curve in math and science, but there are still large numbers, in absolute terms, who are not. Plus, a lot of R & D in the US is done by immigrants who have come from other places where they received excellent education.....despite perhaps being in the third world. The US benefits hugely from the tax-funded education of people from other countries. It's one of the ways the US has been staving off the effects of the failure of its own education systems in many parts of the US. At the same time, there are still many schools in the US committed to providing excellent, reality-based (no creationism or other faith-based mumbo-jumbo) education in the sciences.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  157. If education in the US is so bad... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    ... why do foreign students fall over themselves to study here and take that knowledge back home, where the vast majority of them become college professors?

    Now, our K-12 education is another story. My niece's English teacher could not name the three different types of conjunction. For Pete's sake, what the hell? One of our problems is tenure in schools. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of bad teachers. It is even harder to get rid of the WORST teachers. Any time someone suggests making teacher pay merit-based, and culling the herd of under and unqualified teachers, the unions go apeshit and scare the politicians into making sure it doesn't happen.

    None of my high school teachers were competent to teach the subjects they were charged with. Luckily I did enough studying on my own to learn the things that would be on the state tests, because the teachers surely didn't. My Electrical Engineer dad also helped make sure I learned the things I needed to learn about math and science. I could learn more from him in 20 minutes than I could in a whole week of math class in school.

    When my job gets shipped off to India, I've decided that I am going to "retire" into teaching and just suck it up and take the $25k/yr and try to make a difference. Of course, there are so many barriers - have to find a non-union district (I may be willing to take a $50k pay cut, but I am intransigent in my refusal to join a union) - have to get all the certifications - so on.

    We'll see how that works out. I will probably be the monkey that gets the shit beat out of him for trying to get the banana at the top of the ladder.

  158. The State of The Yoonyun by photomonkey · · Score: 1

    I spent my time after I got home from work tonight (until now) cleaning graffiti off of the backside of the fence in my yard.

    On my way home from work, I drove past tons of high school students (I live almost next door to a high school, and in one of the best neighborhoods in my city) with ripped t-shirts, wildly colored hair, baggy pants with zippers everywhere, and no purpose in their step.

    The problem is twofold: The American family structure these days blows, and the educational system blows.

    The family has nothing to do, really, with single parents and divorce. It has to do with the fact that too many parents value their time and lives more than their kids. So they get babysitters one night a week so they can go to the bar. And they turn on the TV when they get home from work so that they can 'unwind' in peace. And their weekend family time is spent at America's favorite pastime: shopping.

    In the monkey-see monkey-do world of childhood, kids see their parents shirk responsibility and act as good little consumers from day one. Even better, the parents have no involvement in their children's schools and educational programs.

    The school system blows because there is no emphasis whatsoever put on critical thinking. Kids can't handle their math class for the same reason they can't handle the critical analysis part of their English Lit classes. They are taught to go look something up (in three sources), combine what's in those three sources into three paragraphs and turn it in.

    Kids can't handle math because they're taught the hows of problem solving, not the whys.

    Kids don't do well with critical thinking, because they're not thought to think creatively either. Arts and music are the first things cut by the powers that be, and when they're not cut, they're often taught by highly under-qualified instructors.

    Sports and activities are good and important, but there's a major problem in that ATHLETICS are perceived as the best way to earn a scholarship for ACADEMIC study.

    From preschool to grad school, too many institutions ignore critical and creative thinking. Everything is taught vocationally. Hence, the death of the liberal arts education.

    And then after school, kids are getting further screwed over by their a) overworked and/or b) undereducated and/or c) socialite and/or d) overly consumerist parent(s).

    --
    Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  159. useless ? !smart : smart == true by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    So you maintain the position that there exists no such person that satisfies the condition that they are both smart and useless? Of course, "useless" is a subjective adjective...

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:useless ? !smart : smart == true by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I take a functional approach to intelligence. I know people with a lot of brain power that don't seem very smart to me...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  160. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That, and although I don't know what nation you're from, I'm betting you can't own a handgun. So we've, uh, got that one on you too.

    In general, the means to prevent the murder of your and yours, at retail (criminal) or wholesale (genocidal government---but we all know that will Never Again happen in enlightened Europe).

    Switzerland is a partial exception, but it doesn't look like that will last for much longer. There may be a few others in Scandinavia, but in all these cases I think it's just for rifles of military utility.

    As for results, I don't know about the rest of Europe, but the U.K. now has the world's highest violent crime rate in the developed world, reversing in 80 or so years an improvement that started in 1300 or so.

    There are a lot of motivations for this sort of government action, but they tend to equate to pity comments like this one from T.D. Melrose: a lot of people would "rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand."

  161. Re:I'm sure this will be interpreted as me trollin by Werthless5 · · Score: 1

    In many high school courses SI units are used. Some students will complain, but they're better off for it that way. All science should be taught using the same system of units.

  162. Re:I'm sure this will be interpreted as me trollin by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because if a student can't handle units involving numbers other than 10, 100, 1000, then the problem is the units and not the student.

    [/sarcasm]

  163. Does that metric apply? by Grundlefleck · · Score: 1

    The US also leads the world in patent development.

    That's not all, the US leads the world in World Series titles, too!
    --
    I accept I know nothing. Insulting my ignorance is wasted on me.
  164. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by upside · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nice try but no cigar. ;) I happen to come from a country with one of the world's highest gun ownership ratios. We get hand guns. We get silencers. A 15 year old can get a gun with parental permission. You can try guess which country.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  165. And how do you do that? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I have held dod/secret, and ssbi/top-secret clearances. Today, getting a civilian clearance is practically impossible. It costs your employer about $40K - $50K, plus, it takes nearly a year to get - so your employer has to pay your salary for all that time while you are only marginally productive. In today's job market, you had better be something very *very* special if you expect somebody to pay for your clearance.

    I am sick to death of these "just get a clearance" posts - as if you just go down to wal-mart and pick one up. Why not suggest "just win the lottery?"

  166. Maybe you should be a patent attorney? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    With all the IP crap that is going on, I doubt you have any trouble finding work. And I doubt that patent attorney work is easy to outsource.

  167. Dropouts include: Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's the way to go?

  168. Re:Possible paradox explaination QWZX by cwtrex · · Score: 1

    I do believe most countries have different rules. So if I may ask, which country do you hail from? My work ethic is about the same. I would love to work 8 hours and then go home without the worry of being fired. The only job that comes close to that, is a federal job and those are hard to come by seeing as the last time I applied for one I got turned down just because I never joined the military. Also, the euro is worth more then the dollar, so technically I'd be making more. So please, inform me of which countries have these rules and more specifically which country you are posting from.

    Btw, does your country have a draft where you have to serve a year or two, after turning 18, in the military? I seem to remember a few European countries like that.

  169. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    There is no logical reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence of its existence.

    You present no evidence that x or y exist, therefore it is pointless to care about such things.

    Your question is more like which is greater the tooth fairy with a sword or the easter bunny with a hammer.

  170. Evolution is Just a Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I am no a creationist or do not think "intelligent design" is worthly of classroom, I do have to question people who attack those who do not "believe in evolution".

    I do not "believe" in evolution. Evolution is a scientific _theory_ that has justifiable widespread support. I "support" the theory of evolution but I hold out the possibility that it may be wrong or even complete bunk. Evolution serves as a basis for hypothesis and experiment. It forms no part of my belief system.

    When we teach evolution, it should be taugh as a theory, not as fact. We should teach students what the related facts are and how evolution explains those facts.

    In short, I think people who "believe in" evolution are just as misplaced as those who "believe in" Chapter One of Genesis is the end all basis for science.

  171. Re:Maybe hatred is part of the problem by uncle+slacky · · Score: 1

    Anything ending in ondensation and starting with a c? What's "condensation" got to do with it? (he said, condescendingly)

    --
    Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
  172. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion