Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Says US Needs Fewer Science Students

Posted by samzenpus on from the too-many-coats-in-the-lab dept.

cremeglace writes "It's an article of faith: the United States needs more native-born students in science and other technical fields. But a new paper by sociologists at the Urban Institute and Rutgers University contradicts the notion of a shrinking supply of native-born talent in the United States. In fact, the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years, the researchers conclude, while the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past, suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive. Cranking out even more science graduates, according to the researchers, does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs, which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students."

16 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. More articles like this please by Idayen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want my salary to go up

    1. Re:More articles like this please by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's easy, just commission studies from the university of Bejing. It's bound to agree.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    2. Re:More articles like this please by cyn1c77 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Way to motivate him to finish strong in his last untenured year.

      In all seriousness, it gets better. You can really tone it down after you get tenure. Keep the hours you want, tell the funding sponsors you hate to piss off, and investigate the projects you want...

      Unless you want full professor! :)

    3. Re:More articles like this please by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Federal Reserve does not print money.

      If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money. The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and poof new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).

      Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.

      It is complicated because there is really no reliable way to centrally calculate or determine exactly how much money should be circulated so that all exchange needs can be meet without triggering inflation. The problem is analogous to the notoriously difficult task of creating and maintaining an artificial price system in centrally planned economies (i.e. Cuba and the former Soviet Union). Modern economies are so fiendishly complex that centrally determining the right prices or the right amount of money is a neigh impossible task. I don't claim to have the solution, but trusting the philosopher kings of the Federal Reserve to accurately guess the right amount of money to supply the economy has done little over the years to redeem the reputation of central bankers everywhere as bunglers. The most recent bust proves that yet again.

  2. So says the sociologists... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Funny

    So... the sociologists say there's too many technical scientists? That's just what I'd expect from those namby-pamby girly-haired soft-science types! I'll bet they've got a correlation study and everything. Well, maybe the technical scientists say there are too many sociologists? And we've got freaky equations and stuff.

    Yeah!

    Who you going to believe, pretty demographics charts or complicated equations? Eh? EH?

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    1. Re:So says the sociologists... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Funny

      So... the sociologists say there's too many technical scientists? That's just what I'd expect from those namby-pamby girly-haired soft-science types! I'll bet they've got a correlation study and everything. Well, maybe the technical scientists say there are too many sociologists? And we've got freaky equations and stuff.

      Holy shit... I just had the best f*cking cage match idea ever.

  3. Re:how many scientists are enough? by tool462 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps we should commission a group of scientists to formally study the idea.

    Who wants to write the grant proposal?

  4. Re:If you want top talent, you need to pay for it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think your sig has been cu

  5. It's a horrendous problem by thefear · · Score: 3, Funny

    The ponderous population of smart people in the US is an untold bane on our society.

    --
    :(
  6. Re:As Rutherford said... by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ernest Rutherford once said The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don't

    Oddly enough, quantum mechanics draws pretty much the exact same conclusion.

    *Ducks*

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  7. Re:Stupd rationale by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't imposing your opinion on how they should pay employees, rather than letting employers set wages as they see fit, rather anti-Free Market?

  8. Re:how many scientists are enough? by Sparky+McGruff · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's totally useless. What we really need to know is how to package lots of bad loans into a derivative and make it worth a fortune. That and how to hide a CEO's income from the IRS. This science stuff just pollutes the mind, and distracts us from putting more money into another Wall Street shell game.

  9. Re:Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    4 is divisible by 6 it's two thirds... some peoples kids.

  10. if programmers were lawyers.. by tempest69 · · Score: 2, Funny
    of course they'd be disbarred.. the dont know law for jack
    Commenting out sections of argument would be rough too.

    Though the concept of catching laws that were totally jacked would be truly amusing.
    For instance because Kansas doesnt recognize gay marriage.. you can be gay married in Washington, move to Kansas, get straight married(they'd have to recognize the gay marriage to claim bigamy), and move to Vermont where they would have to recognize both.
    Just add Graph Theory.. and you can have size 2n circular marriages for [n >2 ,n Programmers would rip the law to shreds.. as those inconsistencies flourish when you let people who dont consider the edge conditions.

    "in closing your honor I would like to submit that this state sanctioned dictionary is recursive with no base case, as such none of the words can be considered to be defined, therefore the law are made of undefined words, meaning the defendant must be acquitted", programmer judge "Therefore I didnt understand a word of your closing, instructing the jury to strike closing"

  11. And what's this? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 4, Funny

    Holy shit... I just had the best f*cking cage match idea ever.

    I see we have a business major chiming in.

  12. Re:FEWER SCIENCE STUDENTS by qc_dk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Peer review of Maiguy's article.(See parent)

    I have studied Maiguy's article on construction of effective rat traps and found it lacking. After an intriguing abstract outlining the quality of his rat trap along with an implied link between upper level science education and said quality, the article becomes decidedly more vague. There article does not contain a thorough enough description of the rat trap experiment that would allow others to reproduce the results. In fact the article does not even contain ample imperical justification for its claims.

    Recommendation: [ ] Accept [ ] Accept after modifications outlined below [x] Reject