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."

85 of 574 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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".
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.........
    14. 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.

    15. 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!
    16. 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.

    17. 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?
  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 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.
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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. 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.

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

    "Patenting the obvious, since 1994" :-)

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  6. In other news... by Philotechnia · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a creationist museum in Texas is closing

    Mod US science +1!

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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?
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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

  9. 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 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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 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
    5. 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
  13. "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 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.
    4. 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."
    5. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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"?

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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!

  19. 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.

  20. ...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...
  21. "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.

  22. 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"
  23. 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.

  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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 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!
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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...

  32. 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.

  33. 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.)

  34. 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
  35. 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?"
  36. 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.

  37. 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.
  38. 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