Slashdot Mirror


Obama To Announce $240M In New Pledges For STEM Education

An anonymous reader sends word that President Obama is expected to announce more that $240 million in pledges to boost STEM educations at the White House Science Fair today. "President Barack Obama is highlighting private-sector efforts to encourage more students from underrepresented groups to pursue education in science, technology, engineering and math. At the White House Science Fair on Monday, Obama will announce more than $240 million in pledges to boost the study of those fields, known as STEM. This year's fair is focused on diversity. Obama will say the new commitments have brought total financial and material support for these programs to $1 billion. The pledges the president is announcing include a $150 million philanthropic effort to encourage promising early-career scientists to stay on track and a $90 million campaign to expand STEM opportunities to underrepresented youth, such as minorities and girls."

149 comments

  1. It has an acronym , so it will fail. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am all for greater education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. However when they put it in a group called STEM, that makes me nervous.
    Just like in the 1990's when they decided to teach kids how to use computers. They had a watered down process. In the 1980s while I was in elementary school, when they taught how to use computer they showed the class how to program, in the 1990's when they really pushed computer education, the focus was on how to use Windows, Word, and Excel. When you make it a requirement, it means the class needs to be watered down, so the average student can get an A+ in the class, otherwise, they would be making a class that could hurt their GPA. Where before, it was an elective class, where the student can take the class if they knew they could do in it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by HBI · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree. Endless educational financing is already available. I don't see where this changes anything for anyone. This does very little to put us on a footing for a post-scarcity society. And we are assuredly on that path right now, whether the political leadership is on board or not.

      I am very concerned about civil unrest in the near future if we don't find things for all the idle hands to do.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe topic-like classes should be taught pass/fail?

    3. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of students will never need to know how to code. While I don't mind kids learning it I have a problem with kids being told they have to know some basic coding when they don't have the math skills to make something more of it than a glorified version of Hello World.
       
      I'd be much more satisfied with students graduating knowing how to write a formula in Excel with a bit more math behind it then a kid being able to tell me the a bit of syntax of some language that will never be used in their life.
       
      If our (as in the US) kids were graduating with the kinds of math and language skills that made us worthy of our first world status I'd say coding would be a next great step. This isn't the case and adding more requirements into an already broken system is plainly foolish.

    4. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Endless educational financing is already available.

      In what universe would that be?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about the money. But how such programs are implemented to get it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a hand-out to our slave masters.

      The push to educate everyone has come from the Government's great support arm. It uses taxpayer money or Federal guaranteed loans and cultural pressure, both decoupled from risk requirements that stop banks from handing out tons of free money, to get everyone to go to college and get a degree.

      This strategy churns out piles of cheap labor, freeing businesses from the social responsibility of building a workforce. Without these public efforts, most students wouldn't be able to go it on their own; businesses would have to hire good, solid entrants and send them to school on the company dime, taking the risk of training them. Businesses are good at minimizing that risk, and so would build a well-tuned, highly-selected workforce with little economic loss. Individuals have to assess an opaque market of both business demand and the state of business demand and candidate availability in several years; they take huge personal risks simply not present when a business does it.

      This cheap labor costs businesses little in salary, even less in training risk (training useless individuals), thus displacing their responsibility onto the individual. It puts risks most easily handled by the rich and impossible to handle by the poor onto the individual, disadvantaging those who are less-advantaged or who will have more difficulty getting a job anyway (e.g. minorities in more racist communities). It's bad for the individual, but good for business.

    7. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this Universe. In Maryland they spend around $15,000 per student. In New York it is $20,000 PER STUDENT. Give me a break. There is plenty of money

    8. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think we need to get off this GPA concept.
      Right now students with strong in Language skills, get a higher GPA than students who has strong analytical skills.

      By keeping the system, such students with stronger analytical skills, will not get credit for what they are good at and will penalized for deficiencies in language skills.

      I was able to write code at 6 years of age, I knew more about science than most adults. However in elementary school, I was placed as a troubled student group, because my reading and writing performance was behind my grade level. Sure we had science classes, and a few other classes where I was excelling at, but they were pass/fail... So I was still tagged as the stupid student.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of students will never need to know how to analyse literature.
      The vast majority of students will never need to know about world history.
      The vast majority of students will never need to solve algebraic equations.

      Learning to code, isn't about knowing the silly commands, but training your mind into solving problems by breaking them down into elementary instructions. It helps you understand the world and trains your mind into different ways of thinking.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      This does very little to put us on a footing for a post-scarcity society. And we are assuredly on that path right now

      No we're not. We have to solve the energy crisis first. That requires a dyson sphere, which will provide 13,000 trillion times the energy we use today.

      Molybdenum and Cesium are so rare we make them using inefficient, energy-heavy nuclear fusion. We have the ability to literally turn lead into gold, or dog shit into gold, or gold into platinum, or piss into Strontium-90; it's really fucking expensive, more expensive than just mining a brick of gold, so we don't. It's expensive because of the massive amount of energy required.

      With thousands of trillions of times the energy available, we could turn anything into anything else. Automation would be a drop in the bucket: those machines are powered by a minimal amount of energy, but they'd be built with material we made dumping in billion of times as much energy to just turn sand into steel. We'd mine asteroids by turning base materials into fuel oils and hydrogen gas, then converting garbage silica rock and other bullshit that's not nickel-iron into nickel-iron, or oil, or gold, or palladium; we wouldn't need to find a high-ore-content rock to bring down.

      That's post-scarcity. So much automated, so much that can just be done by magic, we don't need people doing anything. We'd have multi-level structures running hydroponic gardens for farms, rather than large swaths of arable land; it would take immense amounts of energy and material, but all that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the full power of the sun itself.

    11. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      I went to a major private university, got an undergraduate in physics, minor in math, and almost got a minor in chemistry too (lacked one class but it was time to graduate). The college of math and science awarded average grades resulting in a GPA a full point lower than the university at large. I never understood how the university could basically state that the students in the college of math and science were a full GPA point stupider than the early childhood education majors.

    12. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure some will say that spending far less and opening the floodgates for more H-1Bs is cheaper than funding STEM education in the US.

      For anything STEM-related, anything is better than nothing. Right now, I know a few high school counselors telling their best and brightest AP students to eschew science/engineering, and go law or business, because "you can be easily replaced by a H-1B in STEM, and law can't be offshored", and "there is no such thing as an unemployed lawyer."

      If you walk into any higher tier university in the US, you will almost certainly not see Americans as professors in the CS, EE, ME, and other STEM departments. Most are either C1 card ("green card") holders, and are here in the US because the money is here.

      It would be nice to get US citizens out of the law schools and into the CS and EE classes... but unlike law where a J. D. guarantees you a career, you compete against competition that can work for a fraction you do every step of the way, be it jobs after college or 5-10 years down the line. At least this is a start, and something other than "moar H1-Bz plz!"

    13. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by umghhh · · Score: 1
      It is not watered down but adjusted to reality in which kids will grow into workers that need to have basic skills in operating a computer and nowadays some idea that there are issues with security esp. when you get a mail from a widowed old lady from Nigeria needing a means of investing millions in charity etc.
      This is not watered down stuff but basics on which if you want to you can build more. Assuming there are still cohding jobs in 20y from now there will be courses doing just that for a minority exactly as today.

      As for cohding again - not sure what the fuss is all about - the companies I worked for so far had always a mix of workers from different backgrounds which more or less resembled the society in which they lived. It was similar in every country and company I worked for with exception of one sorry place in Germany where there was not a single local engineer. I also hear from my colleagues in US hat where they are there is indeed skewed racial balance among workers - almost no whites for instance: 3 whites in 100 of workers mostly of East Asia, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladesh origins. One may of course claim this means I have contact people with low pay companies in US. That may be but they still work in IT. So where is the racial problem Obama is addressing then?

    14. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GPA concept is fine. You could be the next Einstein in science, technology, engineering, and math, but if you can't communicate your ideas, concepts, experiments, or conclusions, no one will ever know just how smart you are.

    15. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learning more math does this in a much more efficient fashion with more potential for future use.
       
      Even so, that still doesn't take from the fact that fundamentals are lacking and now we're adding onto that heap with no real solution being offered.

    16. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      GPA != intelligence and never has been. A "C" in organic chemistry shows more intellectual work and more capacity to do work than does receiving an "A" in basket weaving.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    17. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of students will never need to know how to analyse literature.

      True, which is why we should remove that portion of the curriculum. They do need to know how to think critically about what they've read so as to be able to evaluate things like contracts or marketing materials though so there needs to be something as a replacement.

      The vast majority of students will never need to know about world history.

      As part of any decent civics program they need enough to knowledge of this subject to be able to vote intelligently. They may not need the intricate details of 12th century Romania, but at least an overview of some of the main civilizations that lead to the development of Western society would be appropriate.

      The vast majority of students will never need to solve algebraic equations.

      Totally untrue. I have $42.06, beer costs $9.13, how much beer can I buy? All students need at least single variable algebra.

    18. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one with our post-scarcity society..

    19. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      The sciences are harder, less subjective and more rigorous, so of course GPA's are lower. Now, lets willingly suspend disbelief and stipulate that injecting money into STEM "programs" for women and minorities substantially increases STEM graduates in the U.S. Does that mean we will be able to reduce H1B visas because the workforce size is sufficient for demand? Or, does that mean we will have more STEM degrees working at Walmart, because H1B's will still cost less than indigenous workers? By the way, I can remember living in California in the early 70's when the lottery was being passed by proposition and promise that all of it would go to education. A lot of it did, and school facilities and staff, especially auxiliary non-teaching staff, increased significantly. Student achievement measured in standardized test scores, however, improved not a whit. So it goes.

    20. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The degree you receive matters. Duh.

      If you wanted a 4.0 you should have majored in education (consistently highest GPA from the lowest (SAT score/HS GPA) students on campus). Then again look at the reaction of the clue-full to education degrees.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be that way. I'm from Ontario, and from the time kids start high school (grade 9), they get to pick university pass (Equivalent to US university or 3-4 year college with degree), college ( Equivalent to US 2-3 year community college or trade school), or just high school diploma. Based on the path they choose, they get vastly different level of courses starting in grade 9. When I was in school, university path included a whole extra year to get kids ready (they've since done away with this). Just because they group certain classes together and try to convince people to take them, does not mean that they have to make the courses easy enough for everybody. I'm not sure how things work in the US highschools, but there is no excuse for teaching the same material to all the students. People should just accept the fact that not everybody has the same potential, and should not be in the same class.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Endless educational financing is already available.

      In what universe would that be?

      This one. The U.S. tops the world in education spending per student (p. 4, chart B1.1).

      The idea that we're not spending enough on education is a myth, manufactured by those who are sucking up the largest chunk of education dollars. If you ever take the time to dig through a school district's budget, you'll find that the biggest single item is administrative overhead. Basically school payroll is top-heavy with too many administrators and managers.

      Every time a budget cut is threatened, they make sure the cuts land squarely on classrooms and teachers, creating an artificial financial crisis. That riles up the teachers' unions and PTAs who broadcast the message that we're not spending enough on education. We really are spending more than enough, but from their perspective we aren't because the administrators aren't passing the money through to them. When the tactic works and public pressure forces legislators to increase school budgets, the administrators divert the bulk of it to fattening up their pay (or hiring more administrators), throwing a few token bones to teachers and classrooms (e.g. an iPad for every child in Los Angeles, which was probably a kickback scheme for the administrators who selected which companies got the contract).

    23. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Endless educational financing is already available.

      In what universe would that be?

      America spends more per student than any other country in the world, except Norway. Beyond a minimal level, higher spending on education does not deliver better results. Pedagogy (teaching methods) also make little difference. By far the most significant factors are cultural. Regions that do well in educating their children place a high value on education, and set high expectations.

    24. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      You can be good at communicating ideas and concepts, but not good at communicating the "normal" way. I can talk blue in the face trying to describe a complex issue, but a few diagrams on a white board and the idea is conveyed.

    25. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

      The US might spend more on education per student than other nations. But how much of that per student spending is actually spent *on* students? And how much is going to pad administrators' salaries, benefits, and offices?

    26. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think that we should make schools integrate subjects more. This would get rid of a lot of problems as to the reasons why we have courses like analyzing English literature. Reading and writing are very important, and so we require that students take English every year. By the time they get to highschool, the only thing left to teach is analyzing literature. Why not do away with English class after the students have gotten to the point that they can write a good paper and require that students write more papers for other classes like science. There's probably a lot of other room to combine courses. Math and science should be tied together more to make the math more interesting for students. Solving derivatives and integrals is a lot more interesting when you're trying to solve actual real world science problems using the math.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    27. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by halivar · · Score: 1

      They don't NEED to learn how to code. But the exposure can be transformative. In 1985, my First Grade class was involved in an IBM pilot program where our learning was augmented with computers. I learned how to read from a self-paced reading program on an IBM PCjr. In the span of weeks, I went from "See spot run. Run spot, run." to a sixth grade reading level and YA fiction novels. A rep from the program came in for a special session where we learned how to get into BASIC and do some simple math programs on the computer. From that moment, six year old me knew that I wanted to program for the rest of my life. I didn't even have a computer, and wouldn't until I was 14 years old, but that dream never left me, and everything I did went towards that. If I'd had continued exposure to computers, there is no telling how much better off I'd be right now. I spent a lot of my middle school and high school years teaching myself programming with nothing but the foggy memories of First Grade and the QBasic Help file.

    28. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Learning to code, isn't about knowing the silly commands, but training your mind into solving problems by breaking them down into elementary instructions.

      I've never met a person who learned to think this way, only people who have always thought this way.Most people will at most learn is the concept, but will rarely actually learn how to think that way. Like any artist, programmers see the world differently. Learning to imitate great painters doesn't make you an artist. A photocopier can do that.

      I'm not saying people can't learn to think this way, I'm saying that anyone can be an Olympian, but many do not have the determination that it takes. If you're born with the innate curiosity to want to solve problems, you will devote yourself to breaking down problems, and you will do this all the time for nearly everything, giving you massive amounts of experience from an early age. Then you will get everyone else that gets dropped into a required class and have no real interest. They may have the potential, but unless they start practicing all the time, they will gain almost nothing. When confronted with a problem, people will use what they are most familiar, and unless they exercise their ability to breakdown problems to the point of at least par usefulness to what they've been doing all of their life, they will revert to their own way.

      Compared to someone who has been doing this their whole life, everyone else thinks like they grew up in a sensory deprivation tank.

    29. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      This does very little to put us on a footing for a post-scarcity society. And we are assuredly on that path right now

      No we're not. We have to solve the energy crisis first. That requires a dyson sphere, which will provide 13,000 trillion times the energy we use today.

      That's a pretty bold claim for a vacuum cleaner.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    30. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you were the stupid student. Reading/writing are extremely important, unless coding in a basement is your idea of a good life.

    31. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      I never said I wanted a 4.0, I am simply pointing out that "easy" majors get higher GPAs than "hard" majors, which I think sends the wrong message about the relative merits. Some high schools are now giving 5 points for an A for college-level courses.

    32. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Why not do away with English class after the students have gotten to the point that they can write a good paper and require that students write more papers for other classes like science.

      The trouble is...in HS and below, we pretty much no longer fail or hold kids back if they don't learn their subjects. There is a reason so many colleges have so many remedial classes for incoming freshmen...English being one of them.

      The lack of skills of many incoming Freshmen is atrocious.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Endless educational financing is already available.

      In what universe would that be?

      This one. The U.S. tops the world in education spending per student (p. 4, chart B1.1).

      The idea that we're not spending enough on education is a myth, manufactured by those who are sucking up the largest chunk of education dollars. If you ever take the time to dig through a school district's budget, you'll find that the biggest single item is administrative overhead. Basically school payroll is top-heavy with too many administrators and managers.

      Every time a budget cut is threatened, they make sure the cuts land squarely on classrooms and teachers, creating an artificial financial crisis. That riles up the teachers' unions and PTAs who broadcast the message that we're not spending enough on education. We really are spending more than enough, but from their perspective we aren't because the administrators aren't passing the money through to them. When the tactic works and public pressure forces legislators to increase school budgets, the administrators divert the bulk of it to fattening up their pay (or hiring more administrators), throwing a few token bones to teachers and classrooms (e.g. an iPad for every child in Los Angeles, which was probably a kickback scheme for the administrators who selected which companies got the contract).

      And that very graph you cite is for primary through tertiary [higher] education, not primary through secondary.
      To quote from the paper "On average, OECD countries spend nearly twice as much per student at the tertiary level as
      at the primary level."

      You can't talk about the figures from that paper and talk about school districts in the next paragraph.

      I looked up Texas spending per student for public education (primary and secondary) and it was $6000 per student last year, on the level of Czech Republic (for primary through tertiary)

    34. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      15,000 per student is not "endless resources". To put it in perspective, it's less than half of what is spent on a student at an elite prep school, which I think is a more reasonable model for what cost-is-no-object education would look like.

      But let's agree for the moment that not every student needs to have class sizes of four or five with a PhD instructors. I'd be very happy if every a typical student in Baltimore has $15,000 spent on him. But one thing you apparently didn't learn is the difference between "average" and "median". I pulled one of the elementary school budgets for Baltimore, and found that it was spending about 20% of its total budget on special needs personnel -- speech pathologists, psychologists, special ed instructors. Note that this doesn't include the fraction of regular teacher time taken up by this. So it's not unreasonable to assume that per-pupil spending if you discount the mainstreamed special needs kids would look more like $11,000.

      I also note that you chose two of the highest cost places in the country to run a school as representative of the whole. Really, it's expensive to educate kids in NYC? Who'd a thunk it? As long as we're cherry picking, let me in the same spirit of fairness reach into the bag of scrabble tiles and "randomly" pick -- Mississippi. Mississippi spends close to the bottom of states on a per pupil basis, and is at the very bottom of the nation in student achievement.

      Let's pick another state at "random" -- oh, look I got Massachusetts. Massachusetts perennially tops the list of states by student achievement by nearly every conceivable measure. But at $14k it's in the top quintile for per student spending . To a certain mentality Mississippi is getting a better deal because it gets away with spending only $7.9k/student. Specifically that's the mentality that isn't alarmed by the fact that almost 2/3 of Mississippi's eighth graders fail to meet minimum standards of proficiency and reading and math.

      Here's a fun fact. The same percentage of Massachusetts eight graders score "advanced" by national standards for mathematics as Mississippi students score "proficient" -- 18%. How much would it be worth for the 18% advanced score to be *typical* of states rather than twice the national average? How much do you reckon it would be worth to pay on a per-student basis for the impact that would have on America's long-term economic prospects? Well compared to the national average, Massachusetts spend $3000/student more. That seems like a bargain to me.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    35. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

      Pedagogy (teaching methods) also make little difference. By far the most significant factors are cultural. Regions that do well in educating their children place a high value on education, and set high expectations.

      Give this article a read (re: teaching methods): http://www.theguardian.com/edu...

    36. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      15,000 per student is not "endless resources". To put it in perspective, it's less than half of what is spent on a student at an elite prep school, which I think is a more reasonable model for what cost-is-no-object education would look like.

      But let's agree for the moment that not every student needs to have class sizes of four or five with a PhD instructors. I'd be very happy if every a typical student in Baltimore has $15,000 spent on him.

      There's one big, fat problem with simply saying "OMG we spend $$$$$ on every student!"

      Most schools spend that money nowadays on more than just teachers, facilities, and equipment. In fact, those three are usually the categories which get the scraps. The lion's share of the money goes towards administration, counselors, and most of all, to "specialists" - which is another term for a middle-management make-work position.

      30 years ago, a typical large-ish high school (let's say ~2000 students) would have 40-60 general teachers, a vice principal, a principal, a couple of janitors, one or two facilities people, and maybe a small handful (around 10) other staff to handle attendance, records, counseling, etc. So you'd have a ratio of 60 teachers to maybe 25 staff for that school.

      Nowadays, you still have 60 general teachers, but now you have 20 special education teachers atop that, about 5-10 ESL teachers, 5-10 special education "specialists", 7-10 counseling staff, 3-5 "curriculum specialists", about 3-4 middle managers that act as layers between the teachers and vice principal, 3-4 teacing specialists (for state testing standards, PSATs, etc) a full HR staff of 10-20, a union steward, a certification/CE specialist (for the teachers), an IT department of sorts with 1-2 people in it, etc etc etc... roughly as many (if not more) staff as you have teachers.

      Oh, and did I mention that whoever runs the local school board in a larger town can rake in as much as a typical CEO, often more? For example, the Portland School District Manager in Portland, OR shovels in a salary of around $150k/year, and an additional $75k/yr in bonuses and benefits...

      Long story short? Until they clean out the $#@%^! cruft, throwing more money at the problem will only mean more make-work jobs that do approximately nothing for the students, the teachers, equipment, or facilities.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    37. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 2

      The US might spend more on education per student than other nations. But how much of that per student spending is actually spent *on* students? And how much is going to pad administrators' salaries, benefits, and offices?

      That's easy to figure out. Pull the school system budgets for your town and read them. It's public record and it takes about twenty minutes to get a feel where the money is going. For example my town spends about $1.4 million in central administration salaries, including the IT department and curriculum support services. This is out of total system-wide salaries of $22.5 million. So about 6%. If you go by total expenses central administration takes up about 5.5% of the budget.

      Now here's an exercise that'll make you better informed than 99.99% of the people who weigh in on this topic. Find another school system that gets better results than yours and do the same thing. How are they spending money differently from your town?

      "Gee it seems like a lot of money to me," is meaningless drivel. What you want to do is compare your town to the best performing towns; or if we're talking about national policy what a typical school system does vs. what the best school systems do. I have no patience with people who parrot complaints about "administrative costs" they've heard on Fox but can't be bothered to find out how their own local tax money is being spent.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    38. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I can't argue in the hand waving style of "schools nowadays", I need actual data specific data about real places.

      My town administration takes 5.5% of the total budget. In the best performing town in my region, it's about half that, but they pay their teachers 79% more and lay out over $17k/student.

      My town's high school has 88 staff positions involved directly with student instruction (teachers, teaching aids, special subject tutors), 2 librarians, 3 janitors, three principals/asisstant principals, 4 guidance counselors, and 4 secretaries. That works out to about 85% of the positions involved in instruction. 74% of the head count is teachers in the traditional sense and 11% offload tasks that teachers would have to do otherwise or provide special content area expertise. So as far as my town is concerned your dystopian scenario is pure fantasy.

      I totally agree, by the way: you could save a lot of money by not educating special needs students. From the budgets I've seen it takes up maybe as much as 1/3 of the per pupil expenditures. But is not educating those students something you're actually proposing? Or do you have an idea for doing it more efficiently.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    39. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by RR · · Score: 1

      Why not do away with English class after the students have gotten to the point that they can write a good paper and require that students write more papers for other classes like science.

      The trouble is...in HS and below, we pretty much no longer fail or hold kids back if they don't learn their subjects. There is a reason so many colleges have so many remedial classes for incoming freshmen...English being one of them.

      The lack of skills of many incoming Freshmen is atrocious.

      A problem here is that the useless English Department administrators somehow managed to make 4 years of English a requirement for graduation. Doesn't matter if you already have skills in English; doesn't matter if you graduate without any skills. You're all getting stuck in the same class, which for lack of anything relevant to learn, ends up being a discussion about whatever fits the fancy of the teacher. Who majored in English for Teachers, so knows nothing useful.

      It also doesn't help that a lot of science teachers don't care about language. They majored in Science for Teachers, and don't understand the importance of communication.

      --
      Have a nice time.
    40. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      which still goes back to "we dont need more spending, we need better spending"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    41. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Penguinisto · · Score: 0

      I didn't have time to do full-blown research with cites and datapoints, so I had to rely on relatively recent experience as an actual teacher... but then, you've proven my point admirably - thank you.

      As far as special needs, that's a complex subject, but...

      There are better ideas, many of which were long-abandoned. However, there is also a need to stop defining every squirming kid who refuses to sit still in kindergarten as a 'special needs' case. Most students that I've seen (secondary level) which were classified as "special needs" were most often teens who lacked any sense of discipline (9/10, it was never imposed in childhood), and were either drugged into submission after a quick diagnosis of ADD or similar (thus needing special assistance just to help them study through the chemical fog that kept them quiet), or were simply not cut out for the classes they were assigned to (or, most accurately, the classes their parents demanded they take.)

      Don't get me wrong - there were definitely students who needed the extra instruction and/or assistance, usually though mental retardation or physical disability. Then again, they used to have special schools built for these needs. For those who weren;t quite that far gone, the public schools simply held back those students who were otherwise too able for special schooling, but were not quite mentally capable (or willing). They'd be held back for another year or more until their minds grew into the curricula, the progressed from there.

      There were also some damned sharp students who could not only keep up, but excel - provided that they had access to something that helped them work around the disability (I had a student who was completely blind, but he blazed through class with a braille keyboard and a braille line monitor, coupled with a screen-reading device.) But, those cases aside, there are (or at least from what I've seen, were) far too many kids who were shoved onto the prozac/adderall pill mill and called 'special needs' just to get them out of the teachers' collective hair. It was convenient for the teachers, and in way too many cases convenient for the parents (it got them both sympathy and and a quiet household.)

      To sum all that up? Let's try with this sentence: Not every kid who goes to school is going to graduate, let alone go to college. The sooner parents realize that (and schools begin enforcing the concept), the sooner we can restructure curriculum to teach the less able and other kids a trade that is within their abilities, and can actually give them a decent shot at a livable wage after school.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    42. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      in the 90s, i learned lego logo and microworlds in elementary school. basic programming. Course, that was only the smart kids class.

    43. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 2

      I'd be very interested to know which city and state you taught in, and whether you were regular faculty. But I think your approach to reasoning about this is misguided. Rather than taking your experiences in dysfunctional school and generalizing from that, you should be looking at how the top performing schools operate.

      Special needs isn't just squirming kids. Despite having lackluster marks, our daughter was screened by the school system as gifted, which in my state is considered "special needs". The school brought in a cognitive psychologist to run an elaborate battery of tests, including a comprehensive neurological assessment. What they found was very specific, narrow deficit: slow processing speed. She was capable of solving complex math problems and generating sophisticated answers to open response questions, but even simple questions took her a long time to answer. So the action plan was to put her on a more challenging course load, but to give her longer time if necessary to complete tests. On top of that we paid for training with an educational psychologist who specializes in learning disabilities. Eighteen months later she no longer required any special accommodations and was near the top of her class.

      In a nutshell, all that new-fangled bullshit worked. 30 years ago she'd have been tracked into an easy CP courseload based on her marks, but the school actually put the effort into finding out that what she really needed was to be tracked into honors and AP courses. And the school system manages to do this while spending about the national average per student -- $11,505.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    44. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      So as far as my town is concerned your dystopian scenario is pure fantasy.

      But does the school system there work well?

    45. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 1

      It could be better. In our state it's considered mediocre among comparable towns, but to give you an example of what that means 86% of students score as "proficient" or "advanced" by national math standards. In most states that'd be accounted as a pretty good school.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    46. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66 I am very concerned about civil unrest in the near future if we don't find things for all the idle hands to do. 99

      You are so correct. Why do you think that BHO pressured the BAFTE and the EPA to ban the 556 round? It is the favorite ammo for the Able Bodied Straight White Christian Male® everywhere. And WHO is getting screwed in this economy?

      This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

    47. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66 Endless educational financing is already available. 99

      Education financing is non-dischargable through bankruptcy. As long as it remains non-dischargable through bankruptcy, it will remain endless.

      This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

    48. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you used the term racist, your argument is disqualified. Any truth found therein is going forward tainted.

      This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

    49. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teacher salaries and bennefits comprise more than 60% of the total cost of public education. Adminstrative personnel costs are small fraction of that, as are all other costs. That's why education reformers pick on teachers - it's where the real money is.

    50. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I spoke of pass/fail, I meant for the electives. The topic classes. The classes that would deal with things that aren't required, such as photography, comp-sci classes, etc. Although, I'm thinking more for the challenging electives/topics, so it doesn't negatively impact GPA.

      I still think GPA has it's use. But it's also important to look at the individual classes taken. Who looks at GPA anyway? Colleges, right? I assume a good personal letter combined with the transcript of the classes would be sufficient enough. Do employers look at pre-college GPA?

      I don't know enough about your elementary school and such to make any informed opinion. Maybe it was messed up what they did to you. Hopefully that's rare.

    51. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      6 for AP, 5 for honors. GPAs can't compared across methods.

      My point is easy degrees get the respect they deserve. Show up with a 'pot studies' degree from Evergreen state (all degrees from Evergreen State are 'Pot Studies') and see how far it gets you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    52. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Right. So the school system in your area isn't dystopian and therefore does ok for itself. It kind of supports the guys point.

    53. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Not really. His point is that school systems are spending money badly already, so that giving them more money would necessarily amount to "throwing money at the problem" (his words). For my town's schools that point fails in that we don't spend money the way he claims all schools do; we aren't top-heavy with administrators. And we spend just a tad less than the national average per student.

      I suppose what you're saying is that since we get better results than the national average for less-than-average outlay, we're doing just fine. That's true, if your standard for "good enough" is "beat the national average"; if you think schools in this country are by-in-large doing a good enough job.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    54. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Evergreen State has a class on marijuana, but they do cover one that touches upon it I guess. See: http://evergreen.edu/catalog/2014-15/programs/theversatilebrain-13617

      Students will explore neuroscience from physiological and psychological aspects. Substances commonly used in American society, such as nicotine, caffeine, sugar, marijuana and alcohol, will provide insight about brain function and how it can be altered by different chemicals.

      And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evergreen_State_College ,

      Faculty issue narrative evaluations of students' work rather than grades, and Evergreen organizes most studies into largely interdisciplinary classes that generally constitute a full-time course load.

    55. Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Throwing money at the problem would work in the case of your school because it's not top heavy with administration. It wouldn't work work in other schools which are top heavy with administration. As such, if you're going to throw money at the problem, it would be best to do so on a case by case basis or not at all. Otherwise you're just encouraging top heavy administrators.

  2. Re:Greaaaaat by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Is that really the first thing you thought of? Is that really how your mind works? "How can I troll today?"

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Here we go again by Alopex · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With the equality of outcomes and not equality of opportunity

    1. Re: Here we go again by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'd rather he clamp down on the H1B abuse. But we know that ain't gonna fucking happen.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not. Kind of hard to clamp down when HR people are given lectures on how to NOT hire American workers in favor of outsourcing cheaper "H" visa holders. Check out this video of one such "training" session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

      Now, what should be of importance to realize that this activity (now that U.S. citizens are largely out of the picture) is being applied against naturalized citizens as well. Before long, I would imagine that "H" holders will inevitably be battling each other to the race to the bottom...in some businesses you already see this happening. As it becomes more wide spread will "H" holders be able to maintain their standard of living in their host country whilst they compete against an "H" holder in a different country with a lower standard of living? Right now, many "H" folks seem to have it good - but that will change when you realize their is another group of people out there who will work for cheaper than you.

      Some may believe it is because of "mad skills" that they have the job that they have, but as soon as someone else with "mad skills" comes to the fore that will work for 30 - 50% less than your standard of living (maybe just because they are in a different country), you can bet you'll be on your way out regardless of who you are or where you come from.

      That is, until people plug the "H" hole that is being taken advantage of...but that will take both regular, naturalized and "H" citizens to band together and realize that by doing nothing each of you will be hanging yourself out to dry from cheaper competition.

  4. Smoke and water by fred911 · · Score: 0

    Mr. President,

    How do you take pledges and a philanthropic effort to the bank?
        How about taking three days of the money you reportedly send to the NSA (at the low estimate 10.8 billion) then you can actually make a claim of funding, instead blowing of smoke up our rectums.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Smoke and water by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The President doesn't control the NSA's budget or any other department. Congress does.

    2. Re:Smoke and water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The President doesn't have authority to write immigration laws either, but that hasn't stopped him.

  5. Theres more to STEM than just education by dptalia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe the President should look at the Kleiner Perkins trial right now. Or the lawsuits filed against Twitter and Facebook. Sure, you can graduate more women and minorities in Stem, but who's going to open up the white boys club?

    --
    Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
    1. Re:Theres more to STEM than just education by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      who's going to open up the white boys club?

      What "white boys club"? I don't know where you work, but most of my colleagues are Indian or Chinese.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  6. Re: Greaaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the intention was to troll, although it was brash.

    He's got a pretty good point. I see part of the outcome is that it will produce well-funded, horribly-taught, scientists and programmers.

  7. Every good deed by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 0

    Wow. Another boost to diversity and underrepresentation. It's good to know that things are going so swimmingly that every popular initiative, whether by coporations or by government need center on woman and minorities. If focuse were spent on improving things for people then woman and minorities would benefit because they are people too.

    1. Re:Every good deed by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      Then I have fantastic news for you: not all that new money is used to boost diversity!

      Don't believe me? Just read the summary.

      Happy now?

    2. Re:Every good deed by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 1

      My point is correct if you aren't a pendant. But yes absolutely 'every' was an shameless exageration now you can go back to your bit shifting.

    3. Re:Every good deed by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Without public funding and guaranteed loans to get people into college: Gotta hire a good, hard-working entrant, train them, educate them, move them up.

      With public funding and guaranteed loans to get people into college: Cash crop of cheap labor. Lots of risk on individuals (waste 4 years without job on education, possibly get oversupplied degree), the poor are least able to handle this risk, followed closely by the disenfranchised (anyone often passed over in the local culture, e.g. blacks or women).

      Tax-funded college and government-guaranteed student loans benefit hiring businesses at the expense of the individual. This is hard to grasp because it looks like money and education and other tangible goods are being handed to the individual, while the market effects are more abstract and difficult to understand without having a huge amount of knowledge in the area.

  8. Form Parallel Institutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may be better for people falling into these under-represented categories to form their own parallel research institutions that compete with the current ones. My impression is that people are fleeing (rather silently) "scientific" fields that have become very near to pseudoscience the last few decades, leaving behind a monoculture of incompetence and fraud. This is not something that you WANT to be a part of.

  9. Re:Replace all with H1b - heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then his open borders and crony capitatlists will replace them with H1b slaves. heh on you all. Why push more STEM education, there are already close to 5 million out of or under employed. They keep pushing this canard to get more cheap indentured servants.

    We'll just make sure the truth doesn't get erased.

  10. No Business of Government by sycodon · · Score: 1

    As long as existing programs do not intentionally or through some structural issues, exclude groups, the government should stay the hell out.

    If this or that group is under represented in some discipline and the only reason is they choose not to attend, then there is no role for the Government to play.

    This applies to Steel Workers or STEM workers.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  11. Re: Replace all with H1b - heh by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Nailed it!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  12. jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by dciman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we really need is jobs for all of these new trains to fill once they graduate. Talk to any recent PhD in the biomedical sciences, engineering, etc, and ask them what they think of the push for greater STEM education efforts. They'll tell you it's basically BS. We can't place the number of graduates we currently have into even remotely well paying, long term, jobs.

    Now, we might need more STEM education and training for more technical, lower level, jobs. But of course that's never how these programs are billed. It's not as sexy of a sell to parents and students! Instead we push people to go to graduate school, get a MS or PhD. Then dump them into a market with slashed education funding, so there are few prospects in the university system. Combine that with a large number of foreign applicants for postdoc and technician positions that are willing to work for MUCH less in terms of wages and you've got a disaster. US citizens do have a slight advantage in that most of the NIH/NSF funded pre and postdoc training fellowships/grants are only open to citizens. But, those are so small in number and highly competitive that it doesn't have a large effect.

    We need to face the fact that we're really training WAY too many PhDs and even masters graduates in most of the STEM fields right now. It's a vicious cycle though. Profs want lots of PhD students because they are very inexpensive labor. Likewise with postdocs... for their training and amount of work they are expected to do... they are paid much less than minimum wage. Moreover, most profs will kick out postdocs after 2-3 years because of pay raises that some institutions mandate. It's just easier to dump the experienced person and higher in a new 1st year that gets paid 10k less, pump and dump... factory style.

    There have been a number of really excellent articles written about this problem over the last few years. Science and Nature have both dedicate page space to the topic. Some suggest forcing researchers funded by NIH/NSF monies to be required to higher long term technicians to their labs and reduce graduate student/postdoc usage. Such actions would start to limit new graduate number, while at the same time providing employment for scientists that aren't interested or can't get a faculty position in academia or don't want to work for industry. A lot of people also think it would help lab productivity, as you'd retain talent and skill sets that were honed over years of work.

    1. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question is how will he pay for it? Increased spending means you need to take in more money thru taxes. Or is this another unfunded mandate that is passed down to the states for them to figure out how to pay for it?

    2. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Money is fungible. All additional spending is printed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We can't place the number of graduates we currently have into even remotely well paying, long term, jobs.

      I believe the prez is making one or more of these mistakes:

      1. Mistaking spot shortages for general shortages.

      2. He's been bamboozled by visa & outsource lobbyists.

      3. He has to blame sluggish wages on something, and lack of STEM workers makes a good scapegoat excuse because it's complicated to verify and has lots of caveats, making plenty of political wiggle room if he needs to walk it back.

      I don't have enough info yet to make a good guess selection from these 3. I suspect a combo. Your speculation is welcome...

    4. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by naris · · Score: 1

      Those new trainees should have no problems finding jobs, all they have to do is move to India or China. And if they become nationalized citizens there, they might even be able to come back as an H1B!

    5. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The politicians don't want to fix the problem which is the H1B visa program. Repeal that program and STEM interest will rise.

    6. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by ndykman · · Score: 1

      Yep. This is moot if spending on research isn't restored to pre-2000 levels and then increased from there. Add in reforms in the grant funding and renewal process, and then we can talk.

    7. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This!

      I just recently got my doctorate in aerospace engineering (Dec 2014). I am having a very difficult time finding work. There was heavy promotion on people getting PhDs from my lab but I think that's just foolish. The jobs I've interviewed for are roles that can largely be filled by masters graduate for less and those folks are more likely to stay long term.

    8. Re:jobs for all these new trainees to fill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we really need is jobs for all of these new trains to fill once they graduate. Talk to any recent PhD in the biomedical sciences, engineering, etc, and ask them what they think of the push for greater STEM education efforts. They'll tell you it's basically BS. We can't place the number of graduates we currently have into even remotely well paying, long term, jobs.

      Now, we might need more STEM education and training for more technical, lower level, jobs. But of course that's never how these programs are billed. It's not as sexy of a sell to parents and students! Instead we push people to go to graduate school, get a MS or PhD. Then dump them into a market with slashed education funding, so there are few prospects in the university system. Combine that with a large number of foreign applicants for postdoc and technician positions that are willing to work for MUCH less in terms of wages and you've got a disaster. US citizens do have a slight advantage in that most of the NIH/NSF funded pre and postdoc training fellowships/grants are only open to citizens. But, those are so small in number and highly competitive that it doesn't have a large effect.

      We need to face the fact that we're really training WAY too many PhDs and even masters graduates in most of the STEM fields right now. It's a vicious cycle though. Profs want lots of PhD students because they are very inexpensive labor. Likewise with postdocs... for their training and amount of work they are expected to do... they are paid much less than minimum wage. Moreover, most profs will kick out postdocs after 2-3 years because of pay raises that some institutions mandate. It's just easier to dump the experienced person and higher in a new 1st year that gets paid 10k less, pump and dump... factory style.

      There have been a number of really excellent articles written about this problem over the last few years. Science and Nature have both dedicate page space to the topic. Some suggest forcing researchers funded by NIH/NSF monies to be required to higher long term technicians to their labs and reduce graduate student/postdoc usage. Such actions would start to limit new graduate number, while at the same time providing employment for scientists that aren't interested or can't get a faculty position in academia or don't want to work for industry. A lot of people also think it would help lab productivity, as you'd retain talent and skill sets that were honed over years of work.

      I'm a PhD electrical engineer and I found a high paying job easily. All of my peers have, too.

  13. Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're flushing $240,000,000 of your tax payer money down the toilet.

  14. Re:Throw money at it, Obola! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised that this hasn't been modded down yet. The idiot moderators wouldn't know what debt monetization was if it hit them in the face with a tire iron.
     
    Just a FYI, our World War II debt hasn't even paid yet because we just inflated the money supply instead...

  15. "underrepresented youth" by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Translation: Sorry poor white boy in Appalachia. Your scholarship is going to a rich girl in Grosse Pointe.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:"underrepresented youth" by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Translation: Trying to disguise the fact that the economy for most of us is imploding due to the social and environmental externalities that corporations are no longer willing to pay for in either taxes or employment opportunity is no longer working. As such, rather than give up our "Kapitalism über Alles" ideology, our only choice is to turn it into class/race warfare.

      I know there are a few more words there. Try to follow along.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:"underrepresented youth" by jbcksfrt · · Score: 1

      You might have had a good point in there somewhere, but I had a hard time following along because of the snark and dangling modifiers.

    3. Re:"underrepresented youth" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odd thing here is that right-wing populists might agree with you vis-a-vis the economy. Problem is they want to restrict immigration while left-wing populists consider that racism. There's no room for compromise.

      As a result, international corporations win.

  16. doesn't make sense by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

    There are billions poured into STEM, and encouraging early career scientists through programs at NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc. None of that is working (less than 50% of people trained in science stay in science). When I was still training students, the best of them generally ended up working in finance, not physics. An additional $250 million is not going to make a notable difference. We need a cultural and structural change in how we train and retain good scientists and engineers, not a meaningless bandaid.

    1. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An additional $250 million is not going to make a notable difference.

      Doesn't matter; it's good politics....Are you against education or minorities?

    2. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only cultural change necessary is a decent payment.
      That is the only reason for which people will go in finance instead of the field got the training.
      We may reduce that to the fact that finance became an industry in itself and not an accessory/utility as it should be.

    3. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a B.S. in Computer Science, work in accounting.

      I was tired of having the sword of Damocles dangling over my neck all the time with threats of outsourcing.

      I have a well paying job with nice benefits, I'm not in threat of being outsourced, I never work on-call, rarely work extended hours (compared to 50-60 hours a week regularly on the IT side). It's nice and relaxing.

      Unless someone is pursuing pure engineering because they love it (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, etc.), I persuade them against it, there is more of a workforce than demand.

    4. Re:doesn't make sense by naris · · Score: 1

      (compared to 50-60 hours a week regularly on the IT side)

      Slacker

  17. Good only if the work is there by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of people will see this as just a handout or lip service, but realistically, what else is there to do? Automation is going to destroy pretty much every service and office job slowly but surely over the next 40 or 50 years. People coming out of school have to do something. The "default choices" used to be that if you didn't go to college or failed at college, you got a trades or service job, and if you graduated, you got some random corporate job. These are the typical jobs we in IT see our customers doing -- some random reporting job or moving numbers around in Excel and emailing the results around, or middle management. Now, automation will be coming for the corporate jobs, and trades are becoming less and less desirable to work in due to low wages and limited to no union protection. So, what's left?

    I doubt everyone can be taught enough to be a good STEM worker, but maybe enough can to sustain the rest of the economy. Even having someone who understands enough logic to troubleshoot things pays off in other fields as well. If you focus on core stuff like that, rather than getting everyone to write "Hello, World!" in Python or Ruby, you may have something. Otherwise, I agree, it'll just be a box to check during your high school career and very few people will be interested in pursuing it further.

    1. Re:Good only if the work is there by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

    2. Re:Good only if the work is there by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think that this kind of stuff will take longer than most people think, simply because of the amount of push-back you get when even trying to streamline things a little bit. Nobody is interested in changing their process to make things more efficient because it means they might be out of a job in six months. Make things 20% computerized, and 1 in 5 employees will be out of a job. If you took the same people and guaranteed them that they would have a decent paycheck for life, and that they would only have to come in 4 days a week for the same pay because the computer was doing a big chunk of their work, they would work very hard to make sure the computer could easily replace them. But the current system doesn't incentivize people to help in the process of automating things.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Good only if the work is there by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2

      You speak as if people have much of a choice.

      Witness scott walker. All he talks about is destroying unions, and workers rights. I'm in Chicago (area) where we have a Democrat (a Democrat in theory) talking about destroying unions. Right to work laws, that in some cases are designed to pull money from unions - the unions can organize, but in effect are starved of funding until they die.

      We're working on eliminating near minimum wage jobs. A restaurant needs X waiters/waitstaff to wait on N tables. Lets get tablets to convert X waiters to Y (where Y X) servers. Google car, Uber Car, most driving jobs gone. Watson? a bunch of doctor and lawyer jobs gone. So, you spent 100,000 a year to be a doc or a lawyer, and now can't find work. How you gonna pay for loans? Hell, Watson isn't even fully out, and the lawyer thing is RIGHT NOW.

      Tech change is happening on Moore's law time, but people don't work on Moore's law, we work on human generational scales, about 20 years or so. Remember that both the Luddites and the original saboteurs, Les Sabot, weren't protesting tech per se, but tech that destroyed jobs.

    4. Re:Good only if the work is there by sjames · · Score: 2

      There is a choice, but our so-called leaders stand in the way. They have forgotten that the economy exists to serve the people (all of them), not the other way around. They treat the economy as if it was some sort of god.

  18. Wow, Rediculous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is absolutely absurd!
    It may SOUND like $240 million is a lot, but there are 74.4 million children in the US/Educational system (Source: childstats.gov), which means that they are pledging $3.23 per student to get them educated in technology.

    I know the solution of "Just throw money at it" doesn't work, but if you ARE going to make the attempt, at least be reasonable about it. What can $3.23 possibly do? Give each student a couple AA batteries and a 6 watt light bulb and call that an education?

  19. Meanwhile in Appalachia... by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The money will almost invariably not go to help Jim Bob in coal country or Tyrone in the hood get a shot at getting the foundation for a STEM career. Instead, it'll go to Sally Middle Class Smith to cajole her into pursuing a career she'll likely leave for marketing or raising kids.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Appalachia... by myid · · Score: 2

      I'm concerned that the money will be spent in Silicon Valley, because that's where the jobs are. The problem is that a large proportion of the people living in Silicon Valley were not born in the US, and will live in the US only temporarily. If we concentrate the training there, then we'll be training a lot of students who will return to their home countries after a few years.

      I'd rather spend the money in areas, like Appalacia, in which a higher proportion of students are Americans.

  20. Truth = modded down by HBI · · Score: 1

    The usual around here.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Truth = modded down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you consider this amount of money to be so completely unreasonable? To start the discussion, for sure we can agree that this amount is not infinite.

      (Also, if you agree with HBI, why would you mod HBI up, and not reverse the mods of the AC?)

    2. Re:Truth = modded down by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      Do you consider this amount of money to be so completely unreasonable? To start the discussion, for sure we can agree that this amount is not infinite.

      (Also, if you agree with HBI, why would you mod HBI up, and not reverse the mods of the AC?)

      ok I'll bite. I won't call any parcitular sum reasonable or unreasonable (mostly because I'm not an analyist and every location is going to have different costs associated with it). That said, there are a lot of situations where school systems pay a very small amount (from memory, isn't utah like 6k per student?), but get significantly better results than places like california and new york that are in the 20k/student range.

      Ancidotally, my experience with increased funding to any particular program just means there's increased waste. I was very involved with the computer science program at my commuinity college before transferring (we were trying to make it its own thing instead of tagging along behind the math department). We got a huge influx of funding from some program, but it basically just sat there while we tried to think of things to use it on. We had meetings about how to spend it (which got nowhere because there were all sorts of limitations as to what it could be spent on), we upgraded all the computers in the lab (which were promptly slowed down again after campus IT loaded them up with the required crapware and monitoring), we spent 10k on building a tiny supercomputing cluster (which was promptly unused because we didn't really have anything computationally intensive to run on it), and then we bought the computer club one of the new (at the time) nvidia tesla cards to do CUDA programming on (which never even got setup because campus policy wouldn't allow us in the same room as it without the professor present). Meanwhile, the CS professors continued todraw abnormally low salaries while the campus president voted herself raises (she was well into the high 200k range by the time enough people revolted and threw her out) and the rest of campus services (i.e. internet connectivity, which we relied on to allow students to ssh into the cluster) suffered horribly.

    3. Re:Truth = modded down by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't have to be an analyst to figure out that the cost of living in New York City is astronomically higher than it is in Utah. A one bedroom apartment in New York City costs an average $2700/month. That same apartment in Salt Lake City would cost $750. A dozen eggs in NYC cost $3.19; in Salt Lake City it's $2.03. If you want to join a gym in Salt Lake, that's about $29/month. In New York it's $86.

      So you're drawing the wrong lesson here. Adjusted for its cost of living, Utah spends slightly less than middle-of-the-pack amounts per student and gets slightly better than middle-of-the-pack results. Clearly Utah deserves praise for financial efficiency, but their results could be better.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  21. Hey douchebag moderators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'm talking about you. Wasting a modpoint. Just throwing crumbs to the pigeons...

  22. federal discrimination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "expand it to minorities and girls"? Does this mean the program was previously available only to white boys before, or that they simply want to exclude white males now?

  23. Yeah.... no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Right now STEM is one of the worst career fields to go into in America. At least the science part is. I say this as someone who left a science Ph.D. when I saw that no one around me was getting a decent job after graduation. And I'm glad I did. Everyone I know who stayed on that route is either working a minimum wage job or jobless ("overqualifed" for everything, apparently) and on food stamps or living at home with their parents in their mid-30s.

    In general, early career scientists are screwed because all the funding goes to older, more established scientists (who got their start in eras with a better economy and more national and cultural focus on science) as they are seen as less of a gamble. This leaves early career scientists to rot in a perpetual post-doc limbo being paid peanuts, treated more like office supplies than people, and forced to move around the country job hunting every 2-3 years when their contract runs out. On top of that, I've had more than a few professors either openly admit to me, or admit to their peers when they didn't know I was coming to see them and in earshot, that they strongly prefer hiring foreign students to U.S. citizens--primarily because they are easier to control, intimidate, and force into unreasonable demands because the foreigners work under the threat of potential deportation if the professor decides to let them go. This was almost verbatim what one professor told me when he turned me down as a graduate research assistant after I refused to work a constant 120-hour week schedule (on a stipend that would be less that what I would make putting in a normal work week at a fast-food restaurant).

    Maybe, just maybe, if they are very, very lucky, a Ph.D scientist can get tenure at somewhere in their mid-to-early forties, so that they can finally approach the standard of living many of their C-student peers in college reached by their mid-to-late twenties.

    Now, I know the summary talked about helping early career scientists... well, if this goes anything like the money that was funneled into science in 2008--2009, here's how it will work: There will be a lot of one-time multi-year grants thrown out to whoever can put the most trendy buzzwords into a proposal. Some of the grants will go to legitimately good scientists, and others will go to unproductive hacks who haven't seen grant money in years--and with good reason. But within a decade or less, the money will run out, and the most of the early career scientists will be right back where they started--competing for a small pot of money against older scientists with stronger publication records. I'm not sure retirement will help, either. I've never seen a tenured professor retire until they were physically unable to leave their house. Doesn't matter if they only teach one class (poorly) a year, do no research, and show signs of mental illness--if they got tenure, and especially if they were worth something 20 or 30 years ago, the department will keep them in their slot out of respect or because firing them is too much trouble.

    The danger here is that the longer you spend in academia, the less likely you are to be hired outside of it. Outside of the ivory tower, Ph.Ds are seen more as a liability except within a very small number of specialized industrial jobs. Though you would certainly be smart enough to learn another field, many employers aren't going to hire and train you when they can hire someone else younger, cheaper, and already possessing a baseline level of training in the field. The only reason I found decent, stable, career-track employment after years of being a grad student is because I had spent years developing more practical/employable "Plan B" skills on the side as a hobby, and the supply and demand curve worked in my favor when I went looking to get paid for those skills. So I suspect this is going to hurt a lot of scientists by giving them incentive to stay in science, where there are already far more Ph.Ds than available long-term positions, and then leaving them high and dry when they are too old to easily switch to another career path. It would be much better to just let the supply and demand curves work themselves out.

  24. Here's the problem... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    We're getting to a point where, due to both science and communication technologies, everyone's flaws and a fuckton of conflicting "facts" can easily be manufactured and disseminated. Power imbalances that could be hidden in the past are now obvious to anyone and a lot of people are asking "Why?" Why does the world have to be like this? Do we really have the shortage of things that economics talks about, or is it that distribution of these things is fucked up? Are the people who are in power actively encouraging and perpetuating dysfunctional behaviors in an attempt to gain more power? Does technology allow us to distribute government control more broadly and still maintain some semblance of a society? In short, all of the questions that we've allowed "professional pundits" and politicians to answer for us in the past.

    Right now, economics focuses on "efficiency" more than any other factor.You've reached a post-"economic" age where businesses that hid their externalities in the past can no longer do so. If these costs of externalities are calculated and charged to the companies, many would no longer be profitable causing huge disruptions in the economy. How corporations should pay for these externalities foisted upon us is the seminal question of the age. We used to think that their tax load and benefit in providing employment was sufficient. But now people who run corporations say "we have to avoid taxes". They say "we have to outsource to be competitive. So they pay less, we pay more. Well, until people see the costs of the externalities well enough and feel the pain of their own payments to the corporate behemoth to understand out that the game is rigged. I dread that day, because those in charge seem to be doing everything in their power to steer towards it.

    --
    That is all.
  25. So... everybody gets a buck? by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    Minus 25% admin fee?

  26. Mod parent down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand what he's talking about so mod em down!

  27. Gang member makes math teacher switch marker color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. the can't be discharged in Bankruptcy loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the can't be discharged in Bankruptcy student loans

    1. Re:the can't be discharged in Bankruptcy loans by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

      Technically they can, but it's a very arduous process.

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
  29. more than 1/3 of the amount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is being spent to tell white males to go to the back of the bus.

    Not saying you cannot get this education, just that we don't want your type up front.

  30. Yeah pledges his hard earned earning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the headline "Obama steals 240 million from grandma, grampa, your brother and your mother to pay off his cronies" is not quite as feel good.

  31. Pointless by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    The POTUS approves or disapproves of budgets. Per the US Constitution, it is the responsibility of Congress to create and pass budgets.

    This will go nowhere.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  32. Pointless by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    The role of the POTUS is not to create budgets, only to approve or veto. Per the US Constitution, it is the responsibility of Congress to create and pass budgets.

    This will go nowhere.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  33. Re:This is just another way to TAX US citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, O'care is all about the insurance industry filling the pockets of politicians so they can pass laws to make more money. Don't you know anything about how gov't works?

  34. What happened to the good ol' all-round education? by asriel22 · · Score: 0

    Some geniuses like Ramanujam may have felt stifled by the requirement to pass the 'other subjects', but I think most geniuses in good old times memorised rhymes like every other schoolboy. America is the most prosperous, most powerful country in the world. It is not facing down an existential threat. It can afford to gamble its future on the hope that given the right environment, the kids will find their natural inclination. Americans are being taught to look through things, before they start looking at things. THIS is the problem. This STEM nonsense might be the one that brings down the Western Civilization. It sure as a hell brought down barbarian hell on the medieval Indians' heads. A country facing an existential threat and still only members of the 'martial classes' can fight? Argue all you want, coders or even rocket scientists are not the future. Edison is not the one who heralded the technological revolution. Linus Torvalds or Sergey Brin is not the next James Clerk Maxwell. Stop preparing kids for the 'gifted programme' and let things happen. A Heisenberg didn't discover quantum mechanics because he wanted a challenge or a tenure. He did it because it was what he did.

  35. Diversity - Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diversity is code for No Whites or Orientals.
    They don't vote for Obama, so don't give them anything.

    1. Re:Diversity - Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right from the cover of The Bell Curve.

      More money for Fourteenth Amendment Humanoids®

  36. Money spent on research Money spent on STEM Ed by ranton · · Score: 2

    I agree that if we want more people to train for STEM jobs, we need to focus on jobs in that sector not in education. We already have an education system qualified enough to produce STEM graduates. We just don't have enough quality jobs for those graduates, so many of our best and brightest go into law, medicine, finance, etc. instead of STEM fields.

    Take that $240 million, plus another $240 billion, and put it into research. Go to Mars, invent better batteries, create DNA specific medical treatments ... the sky really is the limit. By doing this we won't care about just creating new jobs because we will be creating new industries.

    People smart enough to work in STEM are usually smart enough to go where the money is as well.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  37. PR Stunt? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    We are trying to get more Americans in STEM, but until we have enough, we need more H1Bs.

  38. It's only $2.5K per school anyway by erikscott · · Score: 1

    It works out to $2424 per school, roughly. Might add one faculty member per school system, at least for larger systems.

  39. Who needs STEM when you have H1B? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YES! Why bother get kids interested in STEM when we can import foreign workers to do the US STEM jobs. We can just increase the H1B cap a bit more and never have to worry about educating US children, with the added bonus that it keeps salaries lower too!

  40. Less than a day in Iraq by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

    The supplementary spending bills passed by congress put the cost of one day of war in Iraq to $280 million, and this number does not include the long term costs.

    Imagine what we could do if we had a war on ignorance?

    1. Re:Less than a day in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Imagine what we could do if we had a war on ignorance?

      We... wouldn't have passed Obamacare?

  41. Financial education by camg188 · · Score: 1

    I think more financial education would have a bigger impact on people's lives. Personal finance tied in with higher education and career planning. Basic cost/benefit analysis. Also business finance like how corporations work and how to start a company.
    All they taught me in high school was how to write a check.

    1. Re:Financial education by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      "All they taught me in high school was how to write a check."

      Seems like this is what is needing to be taught more nowadays....along with balancing it, and how APR and interest rates work.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  42. "This year's fair is focused on diversity. " by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Since the majority of college attendees AND college graduates are women, does that mean they're looking particularly for men?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:"This year's fair is focused on diversity. " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diversity in theory
      Inclusion of the other
      Howe'er in practice
      Exclusion of the brother
      I fear that the bigots
      Had reason all along

  43. Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More STEM graduates at the same time that the federal gov't is planning to increase the number of H1-B's to give away all the STEM jobs to foreigners that will work for a fraction of the cost. This will leave another large number of college grads with a huge student loan debt they can't pay off, despite going in to a field that should be able to afford modern college debt. We just got through the housing bubble, next up- the college-debt bubble.

    The only way this will work is if the feds pass a law requiring all H1-B positions to be considered open reqs immediately available to any US citizen that applies. Otherwise, our baristas at starbucks might actually be trained engineers rather than just liberal arts students.

  44. What about college debt? STEM jobs? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    It's all well and good to talk about supporting STEM education, but that doesn't do much good if everyone who considers investing their time and effort in that direction realizes that they'll be burdening themselves with intolerable debt, and that there's a very good chance they won't be able to get a job which will even let them keep up with accumulating interest.

    This smells to me like a pure PR move.

    --

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

    STEM is the new fancy word for Minority School Hand Out.

  46. Re:What about college debt? STEM jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Many graduate programs in STEM waive most of the tuition and pay a monthly stipend to the students in exchange for teaching labs, grading undergraduate coursework, and/or working as a research assistant. It isn't a lot (actually, it's often less than minimum wage if you work out the pay divided by the hours most research advisors will expect of you), but it is enough to live on at a just-above-poverty level. It is entirely possible to get a graduate degree in STEM while incurring little to no additional debt.

    The real problem you run into is the years you spend in grad school making dirt nothing and training for jobs that don't exist while everyone else you graduated college with gets real jobs with real money and benefits and starts building job experience that will matter a lot more in future employers' eyes than your or Ph.D. (Although a Masters may have some value, but only in certain fields, and mostly non-STEM fields or engineering). So you leave grad school with the choice of either becoming a post-doc and continuing to make dirt nothing with zero job security, or you switch careers putting you at a disadvantage to all of the new college graduates coming out with degrees and education in whatever field you are trying to get into. And either way, financially speaking, you are about 5-10 years behind all of your peers that didn't go to grad school.

  47. Disguised money for educators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a sop tossed to left-wing educators, NOT a serious proposal to benefitt any student. The educational establishment (unionized K-12 teachers and management, plus university instructors and their management) are a core element of the Democrat party.

    We are already graduating more STEM people every year than there are new jobs for them (something that cannot benefit people with STEM degrees as such a ratio naturally suppresses wages and opportunities) but in the Obama years we have actually issued so many H1-B visas for "vital" STEM employees (apparently the Chamber of Cronies and the politicians are in agreement that Americans won't do science, tech, engineering, or math) that there has been no net increase in native-born STEM employment.

    Young Americans who want to live well need to drop STEM and become lobbyists, or emplyees of the IRS, Social Security Admin, VA or other government agency; THERE you:

    [1] cannot be fired no matter how many laws you break,

    [2] get guaranteed pay increases no matter how poorly you perform,

    [3] get a pension (at a time when almost nobody on the private sector gets one) while paying very little into it, and

    [4] are not subject to the laws of economics (unlike a business where bad performance can lead to business collapse and unemployment, government workers will get paid even if the government has to point guns at taxpayers to get the cash and/or print the money)

  48. Basic Income for those born before 1970 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education won't help those over forty-five. I propose the following:

    Social Security OAB Reform:

    1. Remove the wage cap for the FICA and Medicare payroll taxes.
    2. Have a college degree? You don't collect. The point of a college degree is to earn sufficient money for individual retirement.
    3. Own a business? You don't collect. The point of a owning a business is to earn sufficient money for individual retirement.
    4. Have investements? You don't collect. The point of having investments is to earn sufficient money for individual retirement.
    5. Received a substantial inheritance? You don't collect. The point of receiving a substantial inheritance is to have sufficient money for individual retirement.
    6. Born or naturalized after 1970? You don't collect. The point of becoming of age in a Post Cold War economy is presumed to be the opportunity required to earn sufficient money for individual retirement.
    7. Raise the expatriation tax to recover what would have been taxed had said individual not engaged in the supreme act of selfishness.

    This puts the burden where it belongs. Those not having such opportunities will receive an income for a dignified future and should not have to run themselves into the ground.

    This will also phase out SS OAB. Once the last pre-1970 birth has died, the program can be closed, the debt paid and the budget balanced.

    8. No longer sell US financial instruments to foreign entities. Only when fiscal sovereignty is restored can political sovereignty be once more realized. The rights you enjoy within the jurisdiction depends on whether or not foreign laws and/or policies invade our shores. Uncontrolled immigration is one of the unpublicized terms upon which foreign entities lend to the US govt.

    It can be done. Remember Fleming v. Nestor.

    This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

    1. Re:Basic Income for those born before 1970 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, nothing like a hefty dose of unpleasant truth to shut down discussion.

      KM732CE.EY.

  49. You'll just end up in the Purple Squirrel bind. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    There's no point trying to guess what employers will want by the time you get done spending anywhere from four to ten years chasing down the education they think you need for that job.

    You'll never be the Purple Squirrel,
    You'll never even see one.
    'Cause I can tell you anyhow,
    They'd rather H1B one.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  50. 1-899-STOP-H1B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it does not eat meat, shoot it. We'll get rid of those pesky Petite Female College Stewdents® as well.

    FTFY