Slashdot Mirror


America Losing Its Edge In Innovation

jaywhybee writes "Forbes has an interesting article about America losing its edge in innovation because engineers and scientists in the US are not as respected as they are in other countries, and thus fewer youths aspire to become one. Quoting: 'I’ve visited more than 100 countries in the past several years, meeting people from all walks of life, from impoverished children in India to heads of state. Almost every adult I’ve talked with in these countries shares a belief that the path to success is paved with science and engineering. In fact, scientists and engineers are celebrities in most countries. They’re not seen as geeks or misfits, as they too often are in the US, but rather as society’s leaders and innovators. In China, eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers. In the US, almost no engineers or scientists are engaged in high-level politics, and there is a virtual absence of engineers in our public policy debates.'"

43 of 757 comments (clear)

  1. It's pretty much the same here in the UK by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Especially among crooks^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians.

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
  2. They once were by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Think back to the TV shows of the '50's and '60's. We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others. The key factor was, they were all intelligent.

    These days we have Homer Simpson and the King of queens, et al.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:They once were by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think back to the TV shows of the '50's and '60's. We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others. The key factor was, they were all intelligent.

      These days we have Homer Simpson and the King of queens, et al.

      That has a lot to do with man bashing. Intelligent women are permitted on prime time, just not intelligent while normal men, for purely political reasons.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:They once were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's stupid. "Engineer", like "doctor" is a reserved title in many societies. In Quebec you can't call yourself an engineer unless you have a degree. Photographers and writers are not responsible by what they do for the lives of people. An engineer who designed a bridge because he decided to call himself an engineer is a menace to society and therefore must be regulated. Surely you're smart enough to understand that?

    3. Re:They once were by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems like you cannot understand the intelligence behind the social commentary in The Simpsons. Do you seriously think that this show encourages people to aspire to the likes of Homer? And in any case, he is an engineer in that power plant, isn't he?

      The Simpsons is a sad case b/c almost everyone misses the social commentary. Or they realize it's a satire of couch potatoes, but it doesn't make them feel bad, rather it makes them feel accepted, or at least acceptable. The show itself kind of drops the ball in this regard: Marge always comes back to Homer, no matter what he does (which begs the question, whom is more stupid?). Intelligent/geeky characters are ridiculed: the science guy, comic book guy, Lisa.

      I love the show, but it only contributes to the negative perception Americans have of academics. Because, really, the show doesn't go out of its way to make political statements. An environmentalist is going to think it's pro-environmentalist b/c of Lisa, an anti-environmentalist is going to think it makes fun of environmentalists b/c of how everyone treats Lisa. The Simpsons rarely takes a stance, it allows the audience to make their own conclusions based on what characters they relate to and their own personal biases.

      You may see the Simpsons as making fun of fat dumb slobs, but fat dumb slobs see it as a reinforcing their normalcy. This was most damaging with kids during my generation (growing up in the 90s). Bart was an icon of cool. No one wanted to be a Milhouse or Martin.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  3. Only... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only brainless jocks are perceived to have leader quality in the US, as long as you are tough and aggressive.
    People think that fear is respect and thus think that the one instilling most fear has to be respected most.

  4. News flash by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People tend to gravitate towards professions that pay better. For instance, your typical Wall St analyst has about the same level of education as an engineer. If somebody is looking at those two options (because they're good with numbers and analysis), and wants to make the big bucks, which one are they going to pick, the one that will pull in $120K a year or the one that will pull in $250K a year?

    The wonderful thing about using the numbers here is that it's a completely objective measure. Unlike "respect" which is harder to quantify.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:News flash by xplenumx · · Score: 5, Informative

      As someone with a PhD in Immunology, I couldn't agree with you more. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking and consulting because the pay was much better - those that 'remained in science' were mostly pre-med. Of my friends who left science, all were making over $100,000 per year before I finished my PhD. Of my friends who remained in science, all were making well under $100,000 within five years - though that's a bit unfair since the average pay for a graduate student was ~$20,000. Those who left immediately for industry were making around $50k after five years.

      I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top 10), and of my class only 2 out of 9 (includes me) continued on for a post-doc. The rest went into scientific writing, consulting, teaching, and most into law. With the exception of Biophysics, my friends in the Biochemistry, Cell Biology, Microbiology, and Genes and Development programs report similar experiences. Some of the reason for leaving science was burn out - low pay, long hours; not to mention everyone knew that a post-doc position was worse (which is very much a sink or swim environment). Pay for a post-doc ranges anywhere from $40k - $50k, with no retirement in most places. A post-doc is about a 5 year position, though many people do two post-docs. In comparison, everyone of my graduate school classmates who went into consulting or law were making well, well over $100k per year, with better work hours, with retirement, and with vacation. FYI, as a post-doc, at a top institution, in our three lab group we had 37 post-docs, 4 staff scientists, and two graduate students - 32 of the post-docs/fellows were foreign (though several had received their green card), all 4 of the staff scientists were initially foreign (two green cards, two citizens), and one of the graduate students were foreign. Some of the post-docs/fellows stayed here in the US, some left. The Ph.D. tend to stay, the MDs tend to leave as they can't practice medicine here without a residency.

      So you stick it out, worked your 80 hours per week (seriously - it's not forced, but you're competing with the world), and happen to have a Nature, Science, or Cell paper. Let's say you get hired as an assistant professor (for the record, there's nothing 'assistant' about being an 'assistant' professor - it simply means you haven't gone up for tenure review yet. An associate professor is tenured). Pay can vary wildly at top institutions, but starting pay is $90k - $110k per year. This is at a top institution who are recruiting the top post-docs, teaching colleges and second tier research institutions pay less. Industry pay tends to vary quite a bit, but the quality of the people and the positions vary quite a bit as well (the range I've seen is ~$60k - $125k per year. The work hours get better, but not by much (especially before tenure).

      For science you have $20k of 5 years of graduate school (no retirement), ~$50k of 6 years of post-doc (assuming only one post-doc, not a safe assumption... oh, and usually no retirement), and you manage to get a top faculty position... $100k. Average age of first faculty position is ~40 (younger if you're foreign by the way given the differences in the educational systems), while working 60-80 hours per week. Compare with all of my peers that peeled off into consulting, law, banking or business who were making far more, far sooner, with vacation, with benefits, with bonuses, with retirement, with a better work schedule the choice is clear. With that said, I love my job (and in fairness, my peers who left science love their jobs), but I'm certainly not encouraging my children to go into science.

  5. I was just thinking of this the other day.... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was just thinking of this the other day. We put so much importance on children to excel in sports, hoping that one dey they will make it into the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB that we neglect to realize how minuscule that chance is. The problem with trying to excel at sports is that if you aren't good enough to be in the top league, you are basically just a point where you don't make any money at all, or at best have to have a second job even to make ends meet. Even if you are good enough at football to make it to the CFL, you still have to have a second job because you don't make enough doing your sport. On the other hand, if we pushed kids to excel in school and intelligence, even if they didn't make it into the elite, for instance being a world class heart surgeon, they would still have plenty of good jobs to fall back on if it turned out they couldn't achieve being one of the best in the world. They could be a family practitioner, a nurse, or do many other things in the same field, and still make quite a decent living. There's only a market for 400+ (432 currently based on quick google) professional basketball players. The market for most other professions is quite higher. There's probably 400 doctors in my city.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  6. follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why is it always the cynical capitalists that complain
    about lack of engineering talent. it's not like they're willing
    to pay for them.

    if you're a bright kid and want to make money, you don't
    go get an engineering degree. you go into finance.

    1. Re:follow the money by mick232 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks. But you should have told me that 10 years ago.

  7. Written by someone who obviously is neither by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, a lot of those kids say they want to become scientists or engineers but very few actually have a passion for it, they only get into it because it's what their parents tell them to get into. It's been my experience that people without a passion for science/engineering and are only going through the motions because they were forced into make really shitty engineers. It's Friedman-esque reporting at its finest(ie taking PR points from companies as the honest truth and not scrutinizing a single thing they are fed provided it matches their preset narrative).

  8. And? by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares? Can't we just outsource that, too? Actually, *don't* we just outsource that, too?

    Anyway, America is about money, jesus, and big tits. Success is about catering to the common denominator. Intellectual advancement and pursuit is for "elitist" pricks with their fancy words and all. Anyway, America loves Jesus and Jesus doesn't give a shit about it. Jesus cares about celebrity and sports. If you need proof, just think of the last time you heard a scientist thank jesus for their discovery? Never! Because jesus only helps football players blond bimbos accepting their Golden Globes.

    And society reinforces this. I've been a jock and a nerd my entire life and I probably don't need to tell anyone what activities and accomplishments got audiences, rewards, cheerleaders, public acknowledgement, and respect . . . and which didn't.

  9. Nationalism or capitalism. Pick one. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In America, you purchase respect. America losing its edge in innovation because engineers and scientists in the US are not as well paid as they are in other countries relative to local prices. Why would anyone spend 4 years training to become a low paid engineer when they could become a highly paid lawyer or financier or manager?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  10. TV shows? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We had an Astronaut/physics guy as the main character in I dream of Jeanie, A senior marketing executive as the husband of a witch in Bewitched, and many many others

    Well, if someone thinks a "senior marketing executive" is a position that inspires technical innovation, I think I've found why the US is losing its edge.

    In other TV shows of the time there was "Get Smart" with the most incompetent secret agent you can imagine and "Gilligan's Island" with the most incompetent sailor you can imagine. Of course, in the 1960s you also had "Hogan's Heroes" with a bunch of pretty competent fliers. Then in the 1980s there was "MacGyver" which is the epitome of technological ingenuity.

    No, I don't think you can get much information on this trend from TV shows.

  11. Gone are the days of sanity... by bananaendian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The popular belief these days is that everyone is allowed to a have 'democratic' opinion on any subject regardless if they have any clue as to what they are talking about.

    No more do we look up, listen to and expect people with expertise to give us the benefit of their experience. Rather we shun 'experts' with their 'facts', since surely that sort of commitment to their field has made them biased and unreliable sources. Only the truly uneducated and ignorant are 'pure' in their innocence, only the most intuitive, simplistic and superficial description of the world maybe be considered honest. Anyone with an explanation longer than a sound bite, let alone a formula, is a charlatan, using his book-knowledge to fool us!

    Trust your gut feelings, your most primitive prejudice, that which you share with those who are the loudest. Because they are the ones in charge now, they are the ones who get what they want in this world. Who gives a toss about the laws of physics, logic or math, when the truth is determined by everyone - with mod points.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
    1. Re:Gone are the days of sanity... by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Grats on pointing out the thesis of The Colbert Report since 2005.

  12. The Nation speaks by bananaendian · · Score: 4, Funny

    The funny thing is, the moment I pressed submit on that one, I realized I had been brainwashed by too much Colbert, and ashamed for having no original thought of my own.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  13. Too busy at sports practice by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am not going for flames, I am being honest here. I teach at what would be called a "rich kids" school (in a medium sized metro area of 1.2 million), even though the real rich kids schools are even higher up the tuition scale than my school. I bring this up to point out what seems to be most important to a vast majority of "elite" families: playing, starting and excelling on sports teams. Science club? What kind of dork does that!? Focus most time on studies? Loser! I fear much of our nation is stuck in a trap where parents are reliving their lives and the kids are feeding like crack addicts off of this behavior. What the hell kind of future do we have when the "top" young people of the future will sit around at board meetings talking about the time they caught the game winning touchdown in a flag football game played in 8th grade?

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Too busy at sports practice by penguinchris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, your answer kind of dances around the real problem - the high-paying jobs are not in science. In fact, it is unbelievably difficult for recent science grads to find any kind of job right now, and universities can't get enough funding for tons of grad students, even if there were enough professors to support them academically.

      I mean, how exactly did all those well-off parents get to be where they are today? Evidently it was not by doing well in school, or else they would probably encourage their kids to do that more than sports and so on.

    2. Re:Too busy at sports practice by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well-connected people don't need technical or scientific skills. They only need personal and networking skills, and the understanding of how to leverage their contacts to take advantage of the less fortunate. Therefore it makes sense for them to work to succeed in sports since that will increase their cachet among their peers, and they will be able to parlay that into influence among those same peers later when those peers have influence of their own to exert against society.

      On the other hand, for the disadvantaged, education is everything, since only a statistically insignificant percentage of the population will become a sports hero or a music legend. Unfortunately, they are still trying to emulate the rich without understanding that acting like you're #1 only serves to make you into a #2.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. It's happened before... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Arabic countries led by the Muslims were the most advanced scientists and engineers in the world, until they let the religious crazies take over. Just sayin', America...

    1. Re:It's happened before... by Temposs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate when people say they disagree just to proceed to lay out some unrelated bit of knowledge they have floating around in their head, for their own gratification...

      Please realize that the fact of the Persians being the most advanced civilization before the Arabs/Muslims is in fact orthogonal to the Muslims being the most advanced later on. The downfall of the Persian empire may have enabled it somewhat, but in no way can you disagree that there was a period of superiority by the Arab Muslim civilization, nor does the fact of Arab Muslims' conquest of the Persian empire in any way diminish the Arab empire's superiority in science and engineering later on.

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
  15. Re:What's missing from this article? by jepaton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe that it says more about politics than innovation that few engineers and scientists choose to enter politics. Perhaps engineers and scientists feel that they can't succeed with a well researched fact-based viewpoint against the slippery populist rhetoric of typical politicians. It's either that, or politicians have provided the ideal environment for engineers and scientists such that they feel there is no need to effect change through politics.

  16. Re:What's missing from this article? by Sique · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean, they are no longer using tanks to roll down protests at the Tianman Square?

    In fact, the revolutionary wave in Eastern Europe of the 1989 and 1990 was mainly carried by engineers and artists, a very unique coalition.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  17. Re:What's missing from this article? by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, one can argue the opposite: that engineers and scientists focused on engineering and science, rather than politics, is a better way to insure innovation.

    In a nation of approximately 300,000,000, we can spare a few people from each field for other purposes. For example, Steven Chu has done a decent job as Secretary of Energy, and he is a physicist. I think science-minded people are good for representing us in government: when you elect lawyers and businessmen, that is when you engage in politics, as opposed to representation. Let most of the scientists and engineers focus on their disciplines, yes, but take a few for government as well. I would apply the same logic to plumbers, car mechanics, teachers, chefs, call center representatives... every walk of life. We need that diversity in our government if we are going to succeed at the intent of our Constitution.

    Remember, the preamble to the Constitution says "people," not "lawyers and society's elite:"

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  18. Old Joke by Epeeist · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is an old joke in the UK, at a dinner party tell your host you are an engineer and he will show you his washing machine. Do the same in Germany and he will introduce you to his daughter.

    1. Re:Old Joke by starless · · Score: 4, Funny

      German engineers are supposed to be good at babysitting?

  19. As an Engineer... by bananaendian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an engineer I work on things everyday that have direct and immediate consequences in the physical world. Hence my errors of judgment or bias have a direct feedback to me. The physical world is a hard unforgiving taskmaster.

    A politician is buffered from any consequences or feedbacks to his actions by distance; the bureaucracy surrounding him as well as the physical disconnect.

    As an engineer I must compromise between contradictory and opposite qualities and find practical combinations that satisfy a multitude of specifications and demands. I must accommodate as well as critically evaluate the demands of users, marketing and design and architecture people, and come up with a mutual understanding of what they actually want within the means of what is possible.

    A politician is defined only by what that supports him in power - those who fund and elect him for the next term.

    The limits with my work are the laws of physics - both direct resources: money, time, people - as well as all kinds of non-intuitive ones: scaling, flow rate, logistic function, probability distribution. Hence my sense for the 'truth' is not based on passion but experimentation, and I appear unsure and as having no confidence in my 'opinions' - which I don't really have at all, as most people understand them. An opinion for me is always something I can explain - at least to myself - and most of the time to others. It is this process that both helps me understand my own reasoning better (keeps me honest to myself), as well as provides a further insight into my cognition as well as to some extent of those of others.

    A politician swims in the superficial memes of popular sentiment. He maybe an ideologue but a successful one is also a pragmatist: he shapes truth into what is most convenient for the occasion and in doing so may actually benefit from self-delusion, even intentional and conscious.

    It maybe be argued that in this way a politician is more 'human' than an engineer and thus is more suited to lead us. And that my friends is the conclusion that cost me my mod points.

    Burn baby burn!

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  20. Re:42 years ago Americans were on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "US did it with no computers, no prior art, and no research base to draw from.."

    There's just so much absurdity and stupidity in that sentence I *have* to answer. In the 1960s half the planet was computerized. The 1960s were THE decade of computer innovation. It's sad that you remember the '60s as the decade that put a lot of kerosene into a metal tube and not the decade that gave us the mother of all demos and sketchpad.

    The Mother of All Demos by the man who invented the mouse in the '60s

    Yeah, guess what, the mouse wasn't invented by Apple.

    Sketchpad. As a youtube commenter puts it: ooooomg.... 1962/1963 !!! I just can't believe it! Way cooler than going to the moon!

    Computer on the Saturn V

    And as for your assertion that there was no prior art, that's just fucking stupid. What the hell do you think NASA took the best Germans for? Their potato salad recipe? Do you honestly believe all these heroic Americans just invented everything out of thin air in less than a decade because going to the Moon is just so useful? Get your head out of your ass. America went to the Moon as the biggest stunt in history using the developped technological base that came out of WWII and business and science needs that drove the computer industry. NASA was a *USER*, not a developper of computers.

    You probably think we only have computers today because of the Moon missions when it's the other way around.

    Look, in 1959 there were already experimental graphic design tools for making CARS. *Nothing* to do with rockets or going to the Moon.

    Picture

    Learn some history I've rarely seen such pig-ignorance, and in an era of instant information access, it's PATHETIC.

    And as for your retarded spelling of "cosmonaughts", Jesus wept, man, Jesus wept.

  21. Engineering by bananaendian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So anybody at all can be an engineer if they just decide so?

    Yes! exactly. Engineering is about a state of mind. You can sit in a school all you like but you'll never become an engineer.

    An engineer is someone who makes things, makes things better, as is passionate about it. The questions is: when did I become an engineer?

    When I took apart my first machine and put it back together?

    When I designed my first circuit, programmed my first code?

    When I sold my first design, setup and registered my own business?

    You can cry into your pillow all you like about formal qualifications - the most successful and inspiring engineers I know never benefited from or cared much for the education they went through - they were already engineers.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  22. Re:public policy is made by real economics by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Government is the one, that is causing the fall of the US economy

    Sad that you ruin your comment with a largely baseless shot against your favorite boogeyman, because you then move on to make a valid point:

    Science and engineering will not be promoted in a society that has no production

    This is not the problem caused by gubmint. Countries where science and engineering are thriving, such as in Germany or Canada, have much larger government spending per capita and more social programs than the United States. The idea that government is the principal hurdle to overcome would only make sense if we had no data from outside the United States, but fortunately we have discovered that there places with similar economies in the lands beyond these shores.

    I'd argue that the challenge is split between two factors: culture (as in, sports are cool, science and math are not) and economics (manufacturing goes elsewhere because of liberal trade policies and a strong dollar relative to other currencies). Again, you can't argue that the latter problem is caused by government just because that nicely fits into your preferred world view, or you would get stuck failing to explain why countries with government run healthcare (unlike ours, even under the recent reform) and sub-65 retirement ages have employment rates equal to or higher than ours, as well as more manufacturing.

    Two modest solutions:

    • Cut school sports, reduce pupil headcount per teacher
    • Tariffs on imports. It's called "protectionism," and though it's a no-no when you have free trade policies that actually work, it's exactly what you do when something as silly as exchange rates causes lopsided export levels.
  23. It's less about engineering and science.. by log0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and more about a lack of respect for any sort of intellect. At least here in the US.

    Turn on Fox News.. at least once during every host's shift you'll see a casting of all things liberal and intellectual as evil and bad for america. 'My politics are right. Yours just aren't wrong, they're evil.' (Jon Stewart comment iirc)

    It's an inferiority complex. Dumb people are just smart enough to know they are dumber than intellectuals. And like every insecure bully ever, they lash out.

  24. Re:What's missing from this article? by Wansu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems that the article's author leaps to the conclusion that a lack of engineers and scientists in politics is a bad thing for innovation.

    That was one point he made. I agree with you that he's out to lunch on that.

    He claims that the reason young people in the US don't pursue engineering careers is because engineering isn't respected. Ummmm, no. It's because the market works. There's little market demand for engineers today. We're not using the engineers we already have and don't need more. Engineering jobs have been offshored even faster than the manufacturing jobs which preceded them. No doubt the spectacle of their peers working their butts off in engineering school for 5+ years only to graduate to diminishing job prospects was probably enough to persuade many not to follow in their footsteps.

    Next he proclaims the schools are broken, that we need to train more engineers and scientists, fund more research, etc.. No. That's what we've been doing all along and the jobs disappeared anyway.

    Former Intel Andy Grove has a much better understanding of our situation. How to Make an American Job Before It's Too Late: Andy Grove

    Andy understands that scaling up innovation is what makes innovation matter and it's the scaling up that is not taking place in America anymore. Scaling up is my specialty. I don't much care for pure research. But if you want to make a million of 'em, I'm your man. All this business has been airmailed to China to make big bonuses for corporate CEOs. And now everyone wonders why we don't make things anymore.

    I have news for Norm Augustine. Flogging ourselves about the schools is not going to bring those jobs back. Further, America is not losing it's edge in innovation. The edge he refers to disappeared almost 2 decades ago.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  25. Re:!Surprise by TarPitt · · Score: 4, Informative

    We imported most of our scientists. We can thank Hitler and Mussolini for our scientific talent. Einstein, Fermi, many other came here.

    In the twentieth century flows of intellectual capital increased from trickles to torrents, measured not just in individuals but in dozens and hundreds of scientists. Some migrated to take advantage of professional opportunity, for instance abandoning the backlog of academic jobs in Germany for the growing academic and industrial research system in the United States early in the century. But many scientists were uprooted either as victims of political persecution or as spoils of war claimed by victorious nations. The rise of fascism in the 1930s drove hundreds of scientists from Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Italy, including many of the leading lights of European science. Over thirty nations took in émigrés, but most went to Britain or the United States. Their colleagues tried to find academic jobs for them, whether out of obligation or opportunity, and often succeeded despite the Great Depression and anti-Semitism.

    http://science.jrank.org/pages/48899/brain-drains-paperclip-operations.html

    Anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-intellectualism, and declining opportunities in the US as opposed to other immigrant destinations has diminished this desirable in-migration. The same factors that discourage native-born citizens from entering technical professions also discourage immigrants

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  26. Re:"experts" are sometimes wrong by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Experts can be wrong too.

    No shit? Everyone screws up from time to time, but take a guess at who is more likely to be right, an expert or an idiot. That experts are periodically wrong does not mean we should trust ignorance instead, which is what a lot of people seem to be doing these days.

  27. Re: What's missing from this article? by techmuse · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thing is, if a group of engineers discusses an idea, sooner or later an idea pops up that everyone at the table agrees is the best possible solution, given the problem to be solved and the resources available to solve it. Then they go put their solution into practice. Politics isn't like this. There are always a few nimrods who will denounce even the sanest solution to any problem as "statist" or "communist" or whatever the appropriate political insult is at the moment, so the end solution is almost never the sanest one.

    QUICK: Name the last president we had with an engineering degree.

    A: J. Carter

    He didn't work out too well, did he? :(

    Carter inherited a disastrous economy, which resulted from a prolonged war funded by future earnings. When the bill came due at the end of the decade, the economy had massive problems. Sound familiar?

  28. Re:"experts" are sometimes wrong by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet unlike idiots trusting their gut on complex societal and engineering issues, experts have a means of discerning when they are wrong and a means of correcting the errors.

  29. Re:A lot of problems. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) An excessive and irrational fixation on "being yourself"

    So, what are we supposed to be, great leader? Automatically submit to authority no matter what just so we can earn its favor and maybe some cash too?

    The irony is that Americans end up conforming themselves to pre-defined pigeon holes anyway way worse that I've seen in other countries.

    Of course, because in other countries, the kids are told what they're going to be, and if they don't measure up, they commit suicide working in some factory. See, I can stereotype too. Conformist attitudes (like yours for ex) are common to the species. Now there's some irony for you.

    2) A fixation on pleasure.

    As opposed to? A fixation on thankless wage-slave servitude? What would make anyone wake up and want to go to work in the morning except the threat of starvation? What a shitty life that would be. I don't do extreme sports or go anywhere near the club scene so I guess I'm safe from your wrath for now.. Talk about stereotyping. Sounds like you're watching too much TV. You must have too much free time, please get another job, lazy person.

    3) A crap work ethic.

    So anything less than a chinese slave-wage laborer is laziness? Your argument is a false dichotomy: there is middle ground between 'special little snowflake' and 'thankless cog.' work-life balance is what's supposed to separate free countries from the rest. Without that, there's nothing to live for. All that would be left is the details of how people are enslaved. In china, you're told what you're going to be by family/government, in the states, you get one chance to succeed at what you select, but if you fail, you're destitute for the rest of your life because the school debt has to be paid by a low wage alternative. Thanks to modern computers, more often than not, everyone (potential employers, law enforcement, friends) knows your personal history whether it is desired or not, and it's people with your attitude that usually want this information so they know what resumes to skip in the pile. Meanwhile, these same attitudinally-challenged douchebags bitch about how there are so many 'lazy' people out there who aren't working. Those who are 'lucky' enough to work for said employers end up being overworked, underpaid, and given zero respect. People aren't robots, but maybe there is something to the asian stereotypes about behaving that way. Sorry, but I have no desire to live that way.

    But the fact is that by and large hard work is still valued. Parents instill the importance of education and hardwork in their kids. They engage them in activities they're convinced will ensure academic success. They aren't fixated on raising athletes, celebrities or kids who are socially popular. And people tend choose careers based on what will provide the best living, not what will make them happiest. And they work their asses off, putting in long hours on a regular basis.

    Best living? What is best living without being content? making the most money? Is that all there is to life? Sadly, it's the semi-rich (six figure income) people who suffer from this the most: they have all that wealth yet have no time to enjoy it. They're ALWAYS working. Where's the success in that? No, I am not advocating that prima-donning kids is a good idea.

    Too many Americans have an awful work ethic. They do just enough to get by but somehow think they're entitled to that job. Far too often I seen people rationalize that mentality by arguing that they deserve better, that they could do what management does. Maybe they can, but given that they can barely do their own jobs right, I wouldn't bet on it. There's too much self-righteousness going around.

    Usually, it's management who can't do the job, so they hire people who can in the form of 'consultants' and *gasp* employees who know what they're doing! When the

  30. Re:!Surprise by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-intellectualism, and declining opportunities in the US as opposed to other immigrant destinations has diminished this desirable in-migration. The same factors that discourage native-born citizens from entering technical professions also discourage immigrants

    The interesting thing is that's tons of immigrants here, especially illegal ones. I live in Arizona, ground zero for illegal immigration, and they're everywhere. But these people aren't exactly pro-intellectualism either, they're exactly the opposite. They're basically just like dumb white rednecks, except their skin's a little bit darker and they speak Spanish, and they're much more interested in starting fistfights to prove their manhood.

    Basically, we're allowing in a bunch of uneducated, backwards immigrants, because businesses like having an ultra-cheap labor pool, while no longer being attractive to the highly educated and skilled immigrants who are the people you want to come to your country.

  31. Re:What's missing from this article? by Gonoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have some things in common
    A lot of engineers and artists are decently educated. Some of them even went to college.
    The big thing they have in common is that very few of them are proud of being ignorant. If they come accross something they don't know, they will either try and find it out or decide that it does not matter to them.
    A lot of people - especially those in charge feel that they are superior to creative and technical people specifically because they are not. Some of them run newspapers, others run businesses and others become politicans.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  32. Re:What's missing from this article? by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's little demand for *entry level* engineering positions. Many places here in the US are dying for senior people. Problem is, there's few paths to get from basic to expert in high-tech. People in the low end can have their jobs outsourced, and potentially get easier positions that pay more and carry less demands. Plus, with the societal focus on popularity and fame, they're not seeing tech jobs as someplace where they can hit the spotlight, but undesirable as cogs in the machine.

    Many of these factors work into draining the low end out of tech, meaning as time marches on there are fewer high-end experts in the field to keep entrepreneurship, strong technical leadership, and R&D alive in American companies. (and this probably spreads to more of the "West" than just the USA)

  33. Re:What's missing from this article? by turkeyfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There's little market demand for engineers today."

    Not so. Its just that the market doesn't want to pay for their services, so they get employed in India, China and elsewhere, where salaries are lower and what they do get constitutes a living wage.

    "Next he proclaims that schools are broken, that we need to train more engineers and scientists, fund more researh, etc. No. That's what we've been doing all along and the jobs are disappeared anyway".

    No so. If you look at the total cost of entire budget dedicated toward paying scientists and teachers of science, it hardly amounts to a couple of ships, a few planes, and a few trainloads of ammo. The military spends way more in a week, what would fund NSF for a year. Likewise, for the total expenditures of most US corporations. The expenditure toward R&D is a small fraction of what they pay the top 5% of their corporate managers.

    "Scaling up innovation" is what has caused the Amazon to disappear, rivers to be polluted, the earth to warm via carbon dioxide, the oceans to acidify, and biodiversity everywhere to disappear. The only thing humans will be scaling up in the next 50-100 years will likely be their extinction.