View Full Version : The American War on Science: our importing brainpower & distaste for science
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_american_war_on_science.php
The American War on Science
Why the country's reliance on imported brainpower is on a collision course with its home-grown distaste for science.
by Christopher Mims • Posted June 1, 2006 12:17 AM
By most objective measures, the United States is the undisputed world leader in science and innovation, whether it's funding for research and development, the number of PhD students it graduates or its share of the world's patents. For the world's wealthiest nation, this is hardly a remarkable feat. What is remarkable is that the US accomplished this with a supply of domestic talent whose skills in math and science are, also according to most objective measures, merely mediocre.
Luckily, in the past, many excellent foreign students have shouldered the load, preferring to come here to study and work than stay in their home countries. This import of talent has been valued at more than $13 billion per year. In US science as a whole, a third of all doctoral students are foreign born; in engineering, the figure is nearly twice that.
At times, our dependence on foreign talent mirrors our dependence on foreign oil. For instance, both are affected by terrorism: New immigration rules implemented in the wake of 9/11 created a backlog at the INS so severe that the number of student visas issued fell by nearly a third from its peak in 2001. If the number of visas issued would have remained flat—though up to that point the number had been trending up—the restrictive new rules mean that in the past five years the US issued 300,000 fewer visas, or the equivalent of an entire year's worth of matriculating foreign-born math and engineering students. Historically, more than half of foreign students who earned their degree in the US remained here to work.
In March of 2003, the house committee on science convened a special meeting to address this growing concern. During the meeting, legislators heard testimony concerning the harsh reality many graduate students and post-doctoral fellows had to contend with: The delay in visa renewals meant that some of these researchers were effectively exiled for months at a time. The committee responded by recommending that overly stringent security requirements be eased. Since then, the situation has improved, and the number of issued visas has begun to rebound.
Unfortunately, relaxing border patrol hasn't totally solved the problem. The supply of foreign students—again, much like crude oil—is affected by demand in other countries. According to the NSF's 2005 National Science and Engineering Indicators report, "Asian locations that have been the source of two-thirds of foreign doctoral candidates in the United States are developing their own [science and technology] infrastructures."
Thanks to newfound wealth and expanding economies, China and India are quickly becoming more attractive places for their homegrown scientists and engineers to stay—or to return to once they have completed US degrees. The number of foreign science and engineering students staying to work in the US peaked in 1996 and has been declining ever since.
Meanwhile, both the percentage of doctoral degrees granted to foreigners and the percentage of scientists in the US who were born elsewhere are at all-time highs, allowing the US to maintain the blistering pace at which it creates new science and engineering jobs. In the past decade alone, the demand for these skill-sets grew at three times the rate of overall civilian employment, to 4.6 million positions.
If we assume that innovation is essential to economic growth, then our entire economy is more dependent than ever on the labors of bright people born elsewhere.
If this supply of foreign minds is threatened, as it appears to be, by a combination of market forces and government blunders, our only alternative is to cultivate a homegrown supply of science professionals. That means tapping high school seniors who are doing worse in science than at any other point in the past decade, according to results from the Dept. of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, which was released last week.
Worse, these are not students who were excelling to begin with. In 2003, when the level of science literacy of 15-year-old Americans was contrasted with that of peers in other countries, the US placed 18 out of 28, ahead of Mexico and Turkey but behind the usual superstars in Asia and Europe.
In absolute numbers the two groups of native-born US citizens most likely to go into science and engineering--white males and Asian Americans--have declined over the past 10 years. The number of white females and underrepresented minorities in science has remained relatively flat. All of these trends are projected to continue.
It is possible that American students' accelerating disinterest in science and engineering, coupled with a dwindling supply of foreign replacements, would set up a Peak Oil-type scenario in the US, where demand for these workers continues to grow while supply plateaus and then dwindles.
This would be the part of the story when a strong leader steps up to dangle a carrot in front of a scientifically complacent American populace and prevent such a scenario. Forty-five years ago, on May 25, 1961, with the embarrassment of Sputnik still fresh in the collective memory, President Kennedy did just that, declaring that the US would put a man on the moon inside a decade.
Thus far, President Bush has recognized the problem, responding with the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which includes increased funding for basic research, education and job training. The ACI also further addresses the immigration policies that have bedeviled foreign scientists studying and working in the US.
All of this is admirable, but it comes from a president who consistently demonstrates a disdain for areas of science that disagree with his personal ideology. Again and again, whether it is stem cells or energy policy or global warming or the dubious need to "teach the controversy," Bush has demonstrated that he is, literally, anti-rational—opposed to the assumptions about proof and inquiry without which science would be merely alchemy.
It would be absurd to blame a politician for a nationwide decline in scientific interest, but it stands to reason that a president elected, and then re-elected, must in some way embody the beliefs of the electorate—here, specifically, its prioritization of science.
We have just entered a century that will present unprecedented commercial opportunity in computer science, biotechnology and nanotechnology as well as unimaginable challenges in the form of energy and resource shortages, disease epidemics and climate change. Addressing the root causes of the erosion of our scientific knowledge base should be one of our nation's highest priorities. This is our Sputnik.
Bryan Wolin contributed research to this editorial.
keg in kc
06-01-2006, 04:41 PM
I don't think we have a distate for science. I think we've grown fat, soft, lazy and, perhaps worst of all, arrogant. We think we're the best, we just don't work like it.
JBucc
06-01-2006, 04:43 PM
We certainly are slacking. I should have my damn flying car by now:cuss:
Ebolapox
06-01-2006, 04:44 PM
talent goes where the money is... and honestly, the 'homegrown' science talent also goes to where the money is... who wants to make a mere 80-100k per year working as a government scientist when you can work in a private firm and take government 'consulting' contracts making HALF for a week or two of work of what a government employed scientist makes
Adept Havelock
06-01-2006, 05:21 PM
We certainly are slacking. I should have my damn flying car by now:cuss:
Forget the flying car, I'm still waiting on my damn personal jetpack!
Mr. Laz
06-01-2006, 05:24 PM
who needs science when we have GOD
science is teh debbil
Chief Faithful
06-01-2006, 06:15 PM
If Darwin was a better football player we wouldn't be having this debate.
morphius
06-01-2006, 07:55 PM
Well, you continue to cut NASA's budget, and try to replace people with robots at every turn. While neat, I don't believe that builds the excitement that is needed to get the right people into the jobs. China and India have this excitement. Its obvious that we have sat on our hands for way to long, we haven't really done anything innovative in space flight and are now going backwards by sending up 60's era 3 stage rockets with a pod, ooooooooh. Hell, our most exciting space craft right now is the X-Prize winner.
Of course in a country where someone can actually patent a process in which allows someone to buy something on a website with 1 click, who knows how anyone can really innovate anything.
morphius
just babble.
Brock
06-01-2006, 07:57 PM
Duh, kids don't want to take the hard classes, and their parents let them get away with it.
tyton75
06-01-2006, 09:03 PM
We certainly are slacking. I should have my damn flying car by now:cuss:
To Hell with that... what about the Pleasure Robot chick with the huge cans!?!? A.I. Style!
To Hell with that... what about the Pleasure Robot chick with the huge cans!?!? A.I. Style!
Well, we can always count on Japan... :thumb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4714000/4714135.stm
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41348000/jpg/_41348135_rep_getty_203.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41343000/jpg/_41343951_203.jpg
Japanese develop 'female' android
By David Whitehouse
Science editor, BBC News website
Japanese scientists have unveiled the most human-looking robot yet - a "female" android named Repliee Q1Expo.
She has flexible silicone for skin rather than hard plastic, and a number of sensors and motors to allow her to turn and react in a human-like manner.
She can flutter her eyelids and move her hands like a human. She even appears to breathe.
Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University says one day robots could fool us into believing they are human.
Repliee Q1Expo is not like any robot you will have seen before, at least outside of science-fiction movies.
She is designed to look human and although she can only sit at present, she has 42 actuators in her upper body, powered by a nearby air compressor, programmed to allow her to move like a human.
"I have developed many robots before," Repliee Q1Expo's designer, Professor Ishiguro, told the BBC News website, "but I soon realised the importance of its appearance. A human-like appearance gives a robot a strong feeling of presence."
RealSNR
06-02-2006, 09:18 AM
We certainly are slacking. I should have my damn flying car by now:cuss:We had that in the 1950s, dude. Check with this guy:
http://www.memorabletv.com/images/cap081.jpg
Oz_Chief
06-02-2006, 09:35 AM
I don't quite agree with the slant of this article. Scientists come here because the USA has the most funding. Between all of our funding agencies and Foundations we eclipse any other country in the world. Also, postdocs in the USA are better payed than anywhere else on the planet.
We are encouraged to recruit scientists from other countries in an attempt to make our workplace more diverse. In fact, this can make a grant proposal more competitive (the inclusion of underrepresented groups).
The argument that American scietists are not pulling there weight is ludicrous. Look at the interest in forensic science. This represents the application of biochemistry, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology, biology, physics, etc. These spots tend to be filled by white, American born females. Also, you will find that the American students who do go after a science PhD excel at math and science.
Anyway...
We are encouraged to recruit scientists from other countries in an attempt to make our workplace more diverse.
I assume you are kidding here, right?
I'm about to get my math Ph.D. (concentration in Probability and Statistics). I'm an American born son of an Irish immigrant mom and a American-born Italian dad. One memory I have from grad school was when a German-born professor told the class a joke which only I got. He then told the class how important it was to know English well enough to be able to make and get jokes in it. He gestured toward me and said that for native speakers that's easy, which I thought was strange until I looked at the rest of the class. Everybody else in that class of about 15 students was from somewhere else--China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe, Korea, Ghana, etc. To me they were always classmates and friends. It is interesting, though, that everyone in that class was either an immigrant or a son of one.
cdcox
06-02-2006, 09:57 AM
Thought 1: Has anything really changed in the last 70 years? Much of the top talent on the atomic bomb project was born and trained on foriegn soil. While we lead the world in Nobel Laureates, about 1/3 of those are foriegn born. I see America as a place where science can flourish, but not necessarily the best place to plant the seed, and nurture a young scientific mind.
Thought 2. Adolescent culture places very little value on science, or any thing remotely related. What do they see being rewarded in the media? Being a celebrity or a sports star. Kids used to build go carts, build tree houses, repair small engines, build electronic kits, fly gas powered planes and model rockets, and all sorts of other science and engineering related stuff. I think it is these activities that plant the essential love of science into a young mind. Seems like a lot of these activities are being replaced by video games and time on the computer.
Thought 3. Science has advanced to the point where you need a whole lot of training to do anything new, and science is all about doing something new. After 4 years of UG, you need another 4 to 6 years to earn a PhD, then you are looking at a post-doc of at least two years. You might earn 50K as a starting post doc in the sciences. After this training period the very successful ones (10-20% of those who start a PhD program) will get an entry level position as a university professor or research scientist with a starting salary of 70 to 90K. Others will get decent jobs, but they won't be engaged in the scientific discovery process.
Though 4. When a market-successful technical innovation occurs now, most of the rewards go to business managers and lawyers. In the technology field, company stock options make opportunities for technical people to be rewarded as well, but in general the science and technologists need to be rewarded more for their discoveries and innovations. J doubt this will happen, but the current reward system has certainly contributed to the current drought of brainpower.
Thought 5. Assuming one were crazy enough to embark on the path described in Thought 3, you need really good preparation in math and science, and our schools are just not providing it. The solution is many, many more hours devoted to these subjects during grades 8-12. Most kids wouldn't benefit from this torture, becuase they have neither the aptitude or the interest at that age to do all this hard work on material that can be somewhat dry. You can dress up science with all the neat demos, experiements, and multimedia presentations that you want, but when it comes down to learning the nitty gritty of the TCA cycle or how to balance a chemical reaction, its plain hard work and there is no big fireworks show at the end.
Thought 6. I see America continuing to excel in innovation. Our economic system and culture (for all its warts) seems to stimulate this. However, it will be intersting to see if we can sustain our ability to be innovative in technology development when we control less and less of the underlying basic scientific discoveries. It will be difficult.
It's a real problem and its causes are rooted deep in our economic systems and culture. It won't happen overnight.
StcChief
06-02-2006, 10:02 AM
I'm about to get my math Ph.D. (concentration in Probability and Statistics). I'm an American born son of an Irish immigrant mom and a American-born Italian dad. One memory I have from grad school was when a German-born professor told the class a joke which only I got. He then told the class how important it was to know English well enough to be able to make and get jokes in it. He gestured toward me and said that for native speakers that's easy, which I thought was strange until I looked at the rest of the class. Everybody else in that class of about 15 students was from somewhere else--China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe, Korea, Ghana, etc. To me they were always classmates and friends. It is interesting, though, that everyone in that class was either an immigrant or a son of one.
Yeah. I initially back in 1995 took it on myself to help 'Americanize' an Indian IT guy in our group, He wouldn't get jokes, slang, etc when the shop was more American than Indian.... I tried to help him understand/relate.
He mostly didn't care about fitting in as a Team guy, try to teach him a was a futial cause. He was bound and determined to keep his culture, send every dime he could home, and bitched about why he was taxed and couldn't get that back too......
I became Jaded twords them, and very much distrust their intentions here in the US with our valuable corp IT resource managing information to give us leverage in business.
Offshoring with them is a failure that is being swept under the corp rug in alot of cases....Their code is in general Crap.
cdcox
06-02-2006, 10:12 AM
I don't quite agree with the slant of this article. Scientists come here because the USA has the most funding. Between all of our funding agencies and Foundations we eclipse any other country in the world. Also, postdocs in the USA are better payed than anywhere else on the planet.
We are encouraged to recruit scientists from other countries in an attempt to make our workplace more diverse. In fact, this can make a grant proposal more competitive (the inclusion of underrepresented groups).
The argument that American scietists are not pulling there weight is ludicrous. Look at the interest in forensic science. This represents the application of biochemistry, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology, biology, physics, etc. These spots tend to be filled by white, American born females. Also, you will find that the American students who do go after a science PhD excel at math and science.
Anyway...
One of the points of the article is that it is becoming much more difficult to recuit foriegn nationals to graduate school. That pipeline is drying up. 9/11 isn't the only problem. Asia has developed many world-class univerisites over the last 20 to 30 years. Top scientific talent can have a higher standard of living by staying in their own country than by coming here.
The advances in forensic science are facinating and to be applauded.. But forensic science is mostly applied science, akin to practicing medicine. The US is developing a sufficient number of medical professionals, even though this requires some level of scientific training. Forensic science is great, but does not really represent new scientific discoveries. Most of the innnovations in forensic science are essentially applications of basic scientific discoveries made in other fields.
Bob Dole
06-02-2006, 10:16 AM
I assume you are kidding here, right?
Probably not. We are encouraged to recruit foreign faculty for just that reason.
Ebolapox
06-02-2006, 10:24 AM
it's funny... I work with a few guys who are also going into epidemiology... the three guys I refer to are from kenya--really nice guys, but their intention is to get their education over here and to go back home to 'use' it...
cdcox
06-02-2006, 10:25 AM
Probably not. We are encouraged to recruit foreign faculty for just that reason.
No encouragement is even really necessary. We just interviewed for an open faculty position. Of the 4 we interviewed (selected because of their qualifications), only 1 was born in the US.
Thought 6. I see America continuing to excel in innovation. Our economic system and culture (for all its warts) seems to stimulate this. However, it will be intersting to see if we can sustain our ability to be innovative in technology development when we control less and less of the underlying basic scientific discoveries. It will be difficult.
There's a reason for seeing less and less scientific discoveries. I work in Economic Development in Arizona's tech industry, and have been asked to sit in a few policy briefings for a few congress folks. The panels usually consist of tech business leaders, Industry-PhDs and academic PhDs.
The common theme every time is that
1) How do we inspire our kids like the space race did in the 60s? The most common answer is something that I've been pushing since 9/11, which is an Renewable Energy Apollo project.
2) The science & technology R&D at universities have been hurt badly in two ways...
---- a) See #1 above... we are importing scitech PhD students from
overseas because our own students aren't taking the spots.
---- b) The funding for PhD slots and grants have been shrinking by way of ill advised budget cuts at the federal level. This has been going on for a couple decades, but has become particularly bad in the last 5 years as federal dollars have been moved to the Iraq War.
3) The private sector R&D in the US hasn't been making up the difference in either private R&D or academic funding partnerships because of the nature of our stock market. The need to hit price targets and dividend payouts has throttled back private investment in long-term R&D.
All three of these factors combine in a particluarly bad way, given that developing countries like China, India, etc... feel compelled to play "catchup" with the US. As such, their government and private sector companies value making the long term investments that we have lost focus on (IMO as a result of our comfortable lead and being the lone superpower).
Probably not. We are encouraged to recruit foreign faculty for just that reason.
Who's "we"?
chief2000
06-02-2006, 10:39 AM
Corporations don't want to pay more.
They just import more by loosening H1 b visa restrictions.
Pay more and everyone will notice.
cdcox
06-02-2006, 10:43 AM
1) How do we inspire our kids like the space race did in the 60s? The most common answer is something that I've been pushing since 9/11, which is an Renewable Energy Apollo project.
In my opinion, you are wasting your time trying to apply a model that worked at one point in time to the current situation.
The interest in science spurred by the Apollo program did not have to compete with 1/10 of the pop culture that exists today. Think about it. At the time of Sputnik many American homes didn't have TVs. Baseball was the only sport followed on a national scale. The Beatles weren't around. Many American kids saw science as a way to escape the family farm. And going to the moon captured the imagination. With renewable energy half of those you attract will be tree huggers with little aptitude for science.
You've probably seen October Sky. Now imagine an equivalent movie set in present-day America built around the boyhood dream of renewable energy. It's laughable.
Donger
06-02-2006, 10:45 AM
The most common answer is something that I've been pushing since 9/11, which is an Renewable Energy Apollo project.
That's a brilliant idea. Of course, you stole it from me, but that's okay.
That's a brilliant idea. Of course, you stole it from me, but that's okay.
You weren't even here on 9/11, liar.
KC Kings
06-02-2006, 10:47 AM
The "problem" with the education level of Americans, is that we show our children that it doesn't matter if you barely graduate or drop out of High School completely; all you have to do is get a Union job and you can make $25 an hour to do the same work that a un-educated, non-English speaking, foreigner could do.
The solution is simple. Legalize the Mexican immigrants and they will start taking all of the low education jobs, (see the fast food, roofing, and landscaping industries in many American cities such as Overland Park), and Americans will be forced to utilize our free public education or pay the price later in life. The same thing happened in the past with the textile industry and it worked out great for the US. The reason why so many foreigners are getting better education is because of the alternative.
Donger
06-02-2006, 10:48 AM
You weren't even here on 9/11, liar.
Lighten up, jAZ.
In my opinion, you are wasting your time trying to apply a model that worked at one point in time to the current situation.
The interest in science spurred by the Apollo program did not have to compete with 1/10 of the pop culture that exists today. Think about it. At the time of Sputnik many American homes didn't have TVs. Baseball was the only sport followed on a national scale. The Beatles weren't around. Many American kids saw science as a way to escape the family farm. And going to the moon captured the imagination. With renewable energy half of those you attract will be tree huggers with little aptitude for science.
You've probably seen October Sky. Now imagine an equivalent movie set in present-day America built around the boyhood dream of renewable energy. It's laughable.
You are right to say that the outcome won't be equal for the exact reasons you mention.
However, that doesn't mean it's a waste of time. The outcome (inspiring the young) while not "equal" exactly, will certainly result in some parallel outcomes including some level of academic and youthful inspriation. We certainly have many many of the same attributes going on in our world today... competition with "the enemy" (this time China and the ME) as well as the omnipresent sense of a threat of terrorism, global warming and sky high gas prices.
And it's not like the R&D investment is a sunk cost (or even an obscure indirect benefit like going to the moon). The resulting science is incredibly powerful economically. It also puts the US at the center of the innovation in the area, rather than leaving it to countries like China who most certailny have a similarly large need and a much greater willingness to reinvest in R&D that is sure to be "unprofitable" in the short run. It's the sort of massive project we should undertake just for the direct benefits alone.
Lighten up, jAZ.
Why would I let you get away with a demonstrable lie?
Donger
06-02-2006, 10:57 AM
Why would I let you get away with a demonstrable lie?
I don't know; perhaps because you had a humor bypass at birth?
I don't know; perhaps because you had a humor bypass at birth?
The after the fact "I was just joking" is always a bold move.
Donger
06-02-2006, 11:04 AM
The after the fact "I was just joking" is always a bold move.
Or just pointing out a fact. The ",but that's okay." part didn't clue you in, eh?
Or just pointing out a fact. The ",but that's okay." part didn't clue you in, eh?
No, it didn't. I'd suggest the use of a smilie at the time, if you want anyone to believe that.
Donger
06-02-2006, 11:17 AM
No, it didn't. I'd suggest the use of a smilie at the time, if you want anyone to believe that.
I didn't think that a smilie was required, but note taken.
JBucc
06-02-2006, 11:19 AM
:nosmilie:
The "problem" with the education level of Americans, is that we show our children that it doesn't matter if you barely graduate or drop out of High School completely; all you have to do is get a Union job and you can make $25 an hour to do the same work that a un-educated, non-English speaking, foreigner could do.
That's an odd view point given that union membership was never more than 20% of all jobs (1983 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)) and has fallen off by nearly half to 12% of all jobs (2005 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)) since then.
penchief
06-02-2006, 11:37 AM
It doesn't help when the president of the United States and his corporate cronies have ganged up to boldly and consistently undermine empirical evidence in order to promote the profit margin and the prophet.
HC_Chief
06-02-2006, 11:39 AM
It doesn't help when the president of the United States and his corporate cronies have ganged up to boldly and consistently undermine empirical evidence in order to promote the profit margin and the prophet.
lol inaudible moonbat screeching
Bob Dole
06-02-2006, 11:43 AM
No encouragement is even really necessary. We just interviewed for an open faculty position. Of the 4 we interviewed (selected because of their qualifications), only 1 was born in the US.
Bob Dole did finally manage to convince them that they should screen them to determine whether students could understand them when they speak.
The professor could have all the knowledge in the world and it's not worth a shit if their English is so bad that the students can't decipher what they're saying.
Brock
06-02-2006, 11:44 AM
Bob Dole did finally manage to convince them that they should screen them to determine whether students could understand them when they speak.
The professor could have all the knowledge in the world and it's not worth a shit if their English is so bad that the students can't decipher what they're saying.
Bigot.
KCTitus
06-02-2006, 11:55 AM
The professor could have all the knowledge in the world and it's not worth a shit if their English is so bad that the students can't decipher what they're saying.
My freshman year in college, I took a 'Intro to BASIC programming' course. It was an easy elective since I had been doing BASIC in high school.
Anyway, the teacher was a PHD from India with an accent so thick, many of my fellow students could barely understand him. It was so bad that I took it upon myself to help 'teach' my fellow class mates through certain excercises.
It was a complete mess. I geniunely felt sorry for those trying to learn in that class. It was a waste of their time.
Bob Dole did finally manage to convince them that they should screen them to determine whether students could understand them when they speak.
The professor could have all the knowledge in the world and it's not worth a shit if their English is so bad that the students can't decipher what they're saying.
What department or what sort of university are you involved with? I'm not asking for any idetifiable information (too many freaks out there), but is it an EE dept? Physics? Tier 1 Research University?
I don't see how in the current era, there is any sort of *need* for *foreign* professor diversity. Heck the competition is so tight for the shrinking pool of PhD's out there that even if it were a policy, I don't see how it could possible be an effective or meaningful one.
My freshman year in college, I took a 'Intro to BASIC programming' course. It was an easy elective since I had been doing BASIC in high school.
Anyway, the teacher was a PHD from India with an accent so thick, many of my fellow students could barely understand him. It was so bad that I took it upon myself to help 'teach' my fellow class mates through certain excercises.
It was a complete mess. I geniunely felt sorry for those trying to learn in that class. It was a waste of their time.
That's not at all uncommon. Spoken and written english proficiency is required, but with the limited pool, there aren't a lot of other options. That's the underlying point of this thread.
DaKCMan AP
06-02-2006, 12:21 PM
Countries with smaller populations than ours graduate many more engineers each year than we do. Engineering is essential and important for our country's continued growth and affluence.
The key is getting kids interested in math and science at a young age - elementary school. No later than 3rd grade we need to start putting an emphasis on math and science so that they aren't scared of these "hard" classes and so that they are on track to complete Algebra I by at least 8th grade.
At our university in our college of engineering we have many outreach programs to introduce kids to science, math and engineering at a young age. Hopefully this will increase on a national level and we can start to graduate more american scientists and engineers.
DaKCMan AP
06-02-2006, 12:25 PM
What department or what sort of university are you involved with? I'm not asking for any idetifiable information (too many freaks out there), but is it an EE dept? Physics? Tier 1 Research University?
I don't see how in the current era, there is any sort of *need* for *foreign* professor diversity. Heck the competition is so tight for the shrinking pool of PhD's out there that even if it were a policy, I don't see how it could possible be an effective or meaningful one.
At UF we have many foreign professors in our engineering department. During my undergraduate studies there has only been 1 professor inwhich there was a major language barrier. Not every professor is 'easy' to understand, but if you concentrate, then understanding is achievable. Plus, once you're in industry you will be dealing with customers, suppliers and co-workers on a global scale so you might as well get exposed to it in college.
At our university in our college of engineering we have many outreach programs to introduce kids to science, math and engineering at a young age. Hopefully this will increase on a national level and we can start to graduate more american scientists and engineers.
Interestingly it's an important issue for businesses (one of the most important), but they never seem to be able to focus their resources on the long term problems like this when the pressure of immediate returns to investors is upon them every day.
They look to organizations like mine to lobby for state and federal funding increases to help solve the problem.
Oz_Chief
06-02-2006, 01:50 PM
One of the points of the article is that it is becoming much more difficult to recuit foriegn nationals to graduate school. That pipeline is drying up. 9/11 isn't the only problem. Asia has developed many world-class univerisites over the last 20 to 30 years. Top scientific talent can have a higher standard of living by staying in their own country than by coming here.
The advances in forensic science are facinating and to be applauded.. But forensic science is mostly applied science, akin to practicing medicine. The US is developing a sufficient number of medical professionals, even though this requires some level of scientific training. Forensic science is great, but does not really represent new scientific discoveries. Most of the innnovations in forensic science are essentially applications of basic scientific discoveries made in other fields.
I think it depends where you conduct science. If you are from Finland you are probably reliant upon Siemens for some type of funding and that will dictate what you can study. Recruiting foreign students at my university is no problem at all. In fact, many students in my department are from South America or India. They probably equal the number of USA citizens.
There is no question that forensic science is an applied science. However, not all students that begin an education in forensics stick with it. Some of them find that they are more interested in the basic science. Many of the applied sciences are good at that. The application allows people to get exposure and then they find out they want to study fundamentals. However, forensics does feed back into pure science. Take terrestrial ecology for example. Studies in forensic taphonomy are providing insight into the contribution that decomposing bodies make to biodiversity, lanscape heterogeneity and the cycling of energy and nutrients. Just because you have an application in mind doesn't mean that you can't do the pure work as well.
penchief
06-02-2006, 05:16 PM
lol inaudible moonbat screeching
Well, it is obvious that the president doesn't believe in science while it's also obvious that his corporate benefactors only care about the $.
I'm sure it's probably a mutual agreement.
Well, it is obvious that the president doesn't believe in science while it's also obvious that his corporate benefactors only care about the $.
I'm sure it's probably a mutual agreement.
Now that we've moved the political stuff back into DC again, I think I'd like this thread to stay non-political. This line of commentary isn't helping that cause.
StcChief
06-02-2006, 05:30 PM
Let's keep politics out of this thread....Serves no purpose
penchief
06-02-2006, 06:31 PM
Now that we've moved the political stuff back into DC again, I think I'd like this thread to stay non-political. This line of commentary isn't helping that cause.
That's probably true. That wasn't my intent. However, it is pertenent to the discussion when our leaders and those who have influence do all they can to undermine science. That's the last I'll say about it.
Let's keep politics out of this thread....Serves no purpose
The problem is that the "solution" is very much one of politics. It's tough to decouple them, but we can talking about the policies rather than the parties or people.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.