Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The mass recruitment was AFTER the war. It was the experience of the role of European (and other) STEM folks in contributing to the war effort that made it happen.

Students flocked to the great teachers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@0R0 what was your message in the last comment ?

you delved into ideological analysis, what I am concerned at the end of the day is: How many top talent stays in US ?

My point is that witchhunt about scientists , organized for short term political gains(everybody has to show how tough they are about China) is counter productive.

There should be substantial economic incentives, long term incentives for top talent, Ok top talent from safe countries in order to not loose this talent.

Actually I think long term China would catch up no matter what we  do, it is just large country with high respect for education and science.

In my opinion the greatest stabilizer of US- China relations would be affluence of both societies. Rich people do not go to wars, real wars with peer competitors, nuclear armed.

( Actions against smaller and weaker countries are just called police actions I am not talking about them here, and proxy wars are just harsher types of olympic games for superpowers)

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

@0R0 what was your message in the last comment ?

you delved into ideological analysis, what I am concerned at the end of the day is: How many top talent stays in US ?

My point is that witchhunt about scientists , organized for short term political gains(everybody has to show how tough they are about China) is counter productive.

There should be substantial economic incentives, long term incentives for top talent, Ok top talent from safe countries in order to not loose this talent.

Actually I think long term China would catch up no matter what we  do, it is just large country with high respect for education and science.

In my opinion the greatest stabilizer of US- China relations would be affluence of both societies. Rich people do not go to wars, real wars with peer competitors, nuclear armed.

( Actions against smaller and weaker countries are just called police actions I am not talking about them here, and proxy wars are just harsher types of olympic games for superpowers)

 

This is not about China catching up.

This is about the CCP and its' policy goals as stated. It is about stopping them.

So long as the CCP or other nationalist China authoritarian regime is in place, it is important for the world at large to detach China from its STEM and entrepreneurial leadership and invite them to leave, particularly into the US, and stop China's participation in international research by cutting off their research centers from Western visiting researchers. Chinese STEM talent working in the West should be invited to stay once their loyalties are ascertained. It is uncertain to a degree, but eminently doable. It is for Western country's benefit, but more importantly it is to drain the resources of the CCP.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Marcin2  I should add that China has already blown its chance at mass affluence by misallocation of resources on a massive scale. It should be taken into consideration that essentially all of China's debt is SOE or provincial/municipal SIV debt, but for mortgages and real estate developers (many locals are SIV financed, some privately, many from HK or internationally - in dollars). 

The central government and CCP accounting of resources makes certain that they are miscalculating in ROI terms. Their investments are producing negative TFP since before Emperor Xi took over. using Prof. Xiang's GDP estimates, the cumulative drop would be appx 15% since 2011.  That is a CRISIS already. Since they are both creditors and debtors within the SOE bank to the SOE corporate sector and the shadow banking sector vs state SIVs and some real estate and private business financing, The CCP may be able to hide the general insolvency, but it will hit a brick wall in cash flows as more people move from being supersavers to spending out of savings in their retirements. Something they have to do because their real estate is producing no income and 93% of Chinese own their homes, so capital gains are no longer accruing. .>60% of home buying is now 2nd and 3rd homes and are selling at disproportional values to income, close to levels of Japan in 1989..Urbanization is not happening any longer. The urban population is stable while the rural population - which is older and has a shorter life span - is shrinking. Massive automation and industrialization of farming in China may bring 200 mil more people into cities, but it is not likely to happen without structural land ownership reform, and is no priority for the CCP. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278566/urban-and-rural-population-of-china/

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Students flocked to the great teachers?

That is what happened later, in the 1960s and onwards. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

That is what happened later, in the 1960s and onwards. 

Well those teachers are now dead so their students are the real talent. Where are they is the best question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I would say more like "during WWII great scientists fled to the US as it wasn't an active war zone."

Because a psycho named Hitler was going after the Jews, the best scientists who happened to be Jewish came here, eg Einstein. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@0R0 current situation is that only China can stop China, nobody else.

Unfortunately for all other countries inherent value of virtually any R&D type is the highest in China cause they are dominating global manufacturing, have largest population and  because  of outside pressure of TEchnology conflict with US.

So Chinaby definition can provide the best value for any Scientist. Natural choince for them.

US attraction is high quality of life and other features not directly related to job of being succesfull scientist like human rights, better air quality , democracy etc. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

These ‘students’ are not ENTITLED to become American citizens. Do they, or you, honestly believe that because they were allowed to be educated in the US and because they prefer the American lifestyle as opposed to that in their home country, that America should simply accept them with open arms?

They rest of the world, generally speaking, seems to enjoy disagreeing with everything America does or stands for, they cheer when aircraft crash into American skyscrapers, they feel that it is their right to illegally immigrate to the US and Americans are treated poorly when overseas...and you wonder why Americans are leaning towards isolationism and do not trust foreigners!

The Chinese have never made a secret of their cyber warfare against other countries...yet you think it is somehow unfair to sanction Huawei. Grow up!

Try being an American in the global arena for a year and then come back to me and tell me that Americans are treating foreigners poorly.

Just a thought what is an American??

Surely "Americans" are a mix of numerous populations from European, African and South American countries combined with the indigenous Red Indian tribes. This is why America is so diverse and IMO what makes America great.

Maybe I'm missing something here, I was under the impression that immigration had made America what it is today. What I don't understand is why America would not want to have these talented students as Americans. I would have thought America would be doing everything they can to encourage they stay in America and contribute to tech, engineering etc to help America stay ahead and lead the world.

I agree control immigration but surely not on talented students who are your scientists and leaders of the future They are the ones that the next generation will learn from either at uni or in the workplace. The stronger the talent pool the better, surely! If you don't want them send them to the UK we'll happily have them, we let everyone else in.

I don't believe any rational person living elsewhere in the world believes terrorism is justified, only those with an extremely warped ideology. We are constantly under threat in the UK, (there were terror related stabbings in London yesterday). 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

“Maybe I'm missing something here, I was under the impression that immigration had made America what it is today. What I don't understand is why America would not want to have these talented students as Americans. I would have thought America would be doing everything they can to encourage they stay in America and contribute to tech, engineering etc to help America stay ahead and lead the world.”

Immigration was instrumental in building America when it was a young country, no argument there. I have an English surname and my mother’s family was from Germany, but we all identify as American, not English-American or German-American, simply American.

You can not equate the necessity of immigration in the early part of American history and the opening of the interior, or the demand for labor during the Industrial Revolution, with the situation as it is now. The country simply does not require immigrants as it did in the past.

Concerning the ‘talented students’ you mentioned, how did you arrive at the assumption that they are any more ‘talented’ than other students? 

Advanced degrees are much easier to earn than undergraduate degrees simply because you are studying a smaller body of knowledge as you progress from a Bachelors, to a Masters, to a doctorate. You identify talent at the undergraduate level.

You also assume that these students want to assimilate and become American citizens. Many do not. What they want is the benefit of their perception of the American lifestyle and to avoid going home. This motivation does NOT make them ‘future scientists and leaders’.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

 

“Maybe I'm missing something here, I was under the impression that immigration had made America what it is today. What I don't understand is why America would not want to have these talented students as Americans. I would have thought America would be doing everything they can to encourage they stay in America and contribute to tech, engineering etc to help America stay ahead and lead the world.”

Immigration was instrumental in building America when it was a young country, no argument there. I have an English surname and my mother’s family was from Germany, but we all identify as American, not English-American or German-American, simply American.

You can not equate the necessity of immigration in the early part of American history and the opening of the interior, or the demand for labor during the Industrial Revolution, with the situation as it is now. The country simply does not require immigrants as it did in the past.

Concerning the ‘talented students’ you mentioned, how did you arrive at the assumption that they are any more ‘talented’ than other students? 

Advanced degrees are much easier to earn than undergraduate degrees simply because you are studying a smaller body of knowledge as you progress from a Bachelors, to a Masters, to a doctorate. You identify talent at the undergraduate level.

You also assume that these students want to assimilate and become American citizens. Many do not. What they want is the benefit of their perception of the American lifestyle and to avoid going home. This motivation does NOT make them ‘future scientists and leaders’.
 

 

By other students I presume you mean American students. 

It would be very naiive to think that all American students are smarter than the rest IMO. I would also assume that to actually get into American universities there is a selection process based on academic qualifications, if not then It's a worry. Having read that 70-72% of students are non Americans then I would suggest the universities are selecting the most talented individuals and the majority of these are foreign students as the "student pool" would be a larger demograph, so this makes sense.

I would imagine that many students who are willing to be educated in US would also like to end up getting a job and living there. Some will meet their life partners whilst being educated as well. I agree that this is open to debate and some will just go back home but many will not want to.

Immigration is still very much needed, America is not "full", as Marcin says to remain at the forefront of tech etc you need to attract the best talent.

I just dont understand why you would not want potentially the best brains to remain in your country?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Because a psycho named Hitler was going after the Jews, the best scientists who happened to be Jewish came here, eg Einstein. 

That was BEFORE the war. 

The mass importation and recruitment of talent started AFTER the war because of the contribution of these folks to the war effort.

The stream of students that came to where the top faculty were is what followed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I would imagine that many students who are willing to be educated in US would also like to end up getting a job and living there. Some will meet their life partners whilst being educated as well. I agree that this is open to debate and some will just go back home but many will not want to.”

Quite possibly true, but these ‘benefits’ were not included in the student visa they were issued...and they were well aware of that. I met my wife in Malaysia. I have two degrees. I have 25 years consulting in the drilling industry (one year with the Malaysian national oil company)...and even though I have been married to a Malaysian national for 8 years, the government will not allow me to become a permanent resident. I must apply every 5 years for a spousal visa which states that I can not work in Malaysia...although they need drilling people. These are the rules and I play by them, why shouldn’t I expect the same from perpetual students trying to stay in the US?

”Having read that 70-72% of students are non Americans then I would suggest the universities are selecting the most talented individuals and the majority of these are foreignstudents as the "student pool" would be a larger demograph, so this makes sense.”

I read the same “70-72%” comment earlier on this forum as well. I am not sure of the accuracy of that comment. That said, let’s assume it is accurate. This by no means indicates that these foreign students are the most talented. By default, most of the foreign students are either sponsored or come from affluent families which can afford to send them abroad. These students can remain in academia indefinitely while an American student needs to get into the workplace, start making money and paying back loans. You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This by no means indicates that these foreign students are the most talented

Douglas I am genuinely not sure on how the American universities do select their students.

In the UK it is done on academic achievement.

25 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

most of the foreign students are either sponsored or come from affluent families which can afford to send them abroad.

Are you saying that only the wealthy can go to American universities?? Again I genuinely dont know so its a genuine question.

If so that system seems immensely flawed to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your undergraduate admission is based on your performance in high school, participation in extra-curricular activities and your scoring on the college admittance exams (SAT or ACT).

Your admittance to a graduate level program is based on your performance in your undergraduate program. If the graduate program is R&D centric, you will also be ‘graded’ on your perceived ability to bring in R&D dollars!

Professors are selected by this metric as well! Professors may not be the tops in their fields, or may not be the best at disseminating information to their students. They may be very good at attracting money to the R&D projects.

I did not say that only affluent families can attend US universities....why do you think there is a perceived student loan crisis? What ai did say is that the foreign students who wish to attend US universities are generally sponsored by a company, sponsored by their country or come from affluent families...otherwise they could not afford to relocate, afford ‘out of state’ tuition, pay for room & board in US dollars and so forth. Furthermore, there are many, many more scholarships and grants available to foreigners.

The system is flawed if you are coming from a middle income American background, have the required educational background, but can not access funding, scholarships or grants. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I never insinuated that “are smarter than the rest”, what I am insinuating is that American should be educating their qualified students FIRST and then accepting foreign students second.

Do you see a problem with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Also, I never insinuated that “are smarter than the rest”, what I am insinuating is that American should be educating their qualified students FIRST and then accepting foreign students second.

Do you see a problem with this?

Not at all!

Im not advocating educate foreign students at the detriment to American ones, I'm advocating educating and retaining those that have got their degrees within American society, whether they be American or otherwise.

I just dont get the argument that they need to go "home" after they are qualified, surely you should try to retain and develop further the knowledge they have gained??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion between Rob and Douglass. Both make excellent points. My two cents is that the US has an excellent, but highly flawed secondary education system. While the number of teachers has remained fairly static for the past 40 years (about how long I've been away from University), the number of administrators has skyrocketed. Meanwhile the cost of tuition has been rising exponentially. In addition, banks who wouldn't give most of us the time of day, let alone a six figure loan, have zero problem loaning hundreds of thousands to 18 year olds who want to go to college to "find themselves". Snowflakes encouraged to apply. 

Finally, the sad state of public school education in this country is so horrific that students aiming at STEM degrees are generally wholly unprepared. My friends who are professors have documented this trend for decades. Colleges have had to create classes to get the current crop of uneducated Americans up to what previously was merely high school equivalency. 

So, Douglass, while I believe you are totally correct for your era, current events says otherwise. We need the best immigrants we can get, especially in STEM, fortunately or not. 

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Number 70 or 72% of students are international are wrong ( at least in STEM subjects ).

55% master degress

44% doctorates

in stem by foreign students.

As high as 70% it gets only in electronics Broad field in doctorates.

(at least per NSF)

Edited by Marcin2
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Your undergraduate admission is based on your performance in high school, participation in extra-curricular activities and your scoring on the college admittance exams (SAT or ACT).

Your admittance to a graduate level program is based on your performance in your undergraduate program. If the graduate program is R&D centric, you will also be ‘graded’ on your perceived ability to bring in R&D dollars!

Professors are selected by this metric as well! Professors may not be the tops in their fields, or may not be the best at disseminating information to their students. They may be very good at attracting money to the R&D projects.

I did not say that only affluent families can attend US universities....why do you think there is a perceived student loan crisis? What ai did say is that the foreign students who wish to attend US universities are generally sponsored by a company, sponsored by their country or come from affluent families...otherwise they could not afford to relocate, afford ‘out of state’ tuition, pay for room & board in US dollars and so forth. Furthermore, there are many, many more scholarships and grants available to foreigners.

The system is flawed if you are coming from a middle income American background, have the required educational background, but can not access funding, scholarships or grants. 

Grad students in STEM get teaching or research scholarships or pay their way directly or via sponsorship or grants from home. The university does not function without them. Which is why universities have high hurdles to take in grad students. They are both research staff and teachers as well as students. The university treats them as slave labor at times. Post docs get to be principal lecturers and research team leaders. They often go through the programs from one country to another. Americans will often go abroad on this kind of exchange, just as foreign ones come to the US. 

Generally,, STEM grad students are the ones that lead and conduct R&D. That is the purpose of their degrees, particularly a PhD. The PhD also allows you to obtain a teaching position at a university. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Just a thought what is an American??

Surely "Americans" are a mix of numerous populations from European, African and South American countries combined with the indigenous Red Indian tribes. This is why America is so diverse and IMO what makes America great.

Maybe I'm missing something here, I was under the impression that immigration had made America what it is today. What I don't understand is why America would not want to have these talented students as Americans. I would have thought America would be doing everything they can to encourage they stay in America and contribute to tech, engineering etc to help America stay ahead and lead the world.

I agree control immigration but surely not on talented students who are your scientists and leaders of the future They are the ones that the next generation will learn from either at uni or in the workplace. The stronger the talent pool the better, surely! If you don't want them send them to the UK we'll happily have them, we let everyone else in.

I don't believe any rational person living elsewhere in the world believes terrorism is justified, only those with an extremely warped ideology. We are constantly under threat in the UK, (there were terror related stabbings in London yesterday). 

 

Just no. 

1) What makes America great is the idea that all men are created equal with inalienable rights from God.  Not man, not government. 

2) Limited government as no one is as good at making decisions for yourself as... yourself.  Division of powers in government.  CHECKs on each branch of government.  Freedom of speech.  Freedom to defend yourself etc.  Has not one thing to do with where the people come from or are native/immigrant born. 

Immigrants are just people.  Like anywhere else.  Generally slightly above average people who are willing to move.  What everyones morals are regarding how to govern is what matters.  Any immigrant who believes authoritarian government power is a bad immigrant.  Every Immigrant who believes the opposite is a good immigrant.  Why?  Everywhere authoritarianism(all forms) goes, people suffer as one dude at the top can never make as good a decision as millions of people no matter how moral/brilliant they are.   

Why I am not afraid of China leading in tech.  Authoritarian regimes squash all entrepreneurship and ultimately lead to their own demise with internal hatred(how nearly every single empire around the world has fallen).  Now India on the other hand...  Could lead the world in Tech, but they also have a crippling amount of Bureaucracy authoritarianism.  USA is headed to India's level of idiots in charge, but is not there yet.  UK saw the light in the 70's due to their crippling socialist policies and saw them again with the EU. So, it is possible to turn it around.  China has essentially been a slave state its entire existence by either internal Oligarchs or foreign Oligarchs and I see no hope of that ever changing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

Generally,, STEM grad students are the ones that lead and conduct R&D. That is the purpose of their degrees, particularly a PhD. The PhD also allows you to obtain a teaching position at a university. 

Nearly every invention of any substance in the 20th century was made by people without Masters, PHd degrees.

PHD/Masters are the adjunct support staff at best.  Those with PHds in the real world  are too stupid to grasp the larger picture and are not the ones with the inventions.  Why they get brought in on a short term basis to look at one tiny aspect and then get fired soon after as they by and large are useless at anything else as they are too rigid. 

PS: All the INS(internal navigation systems) in downwell bore holes, missiles to Mars, Excalibur artillery etc.... all done by guys without PH'ds and Masters.  Ok, a couple of them got Masters in their 50's.  All the guys designing aircraft... Not a PHD in sight.  The guys who invented what we today call DSL & Cable were done by a bunch of guys who did not even have BS Engineering degrees let alone PH'ds.  They were interested in the subject and self taught themselves.  

All a PHD means is that you are disciplined, and dedicated to spending money you have not earned on education instead of teaching yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Also, I never insinuated that “are smarter than the rest”, what I am insinuating is that American should be educating their qualified students FIRST and then accepting foreign students second.

Do you see a problem with this?

 

All universities have loads of foreign students - many of them are Americans.  Exchange of professors, students etc. is just the way universities work.  Mixing things up is very good for the creative process. If every nation stopped accepting foreign students before "their own were taught" we would be much worse off. 

Or is the arrogance of the US so high that you really think you have all the best schools?  Sure MIT is awesome but Cambridge is legendary.  How would you feel if Cambridge excluded top candidates from the states?

Heck, most published papers are collaborative efforts with the various authors working at different institutions around the globe.  Face it globalism is here to stay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Nearly every invention of any substance in the 20th century was made by people without Masters, PHd degrees.

PHD/Masters are the adjunct support staff at best.  Those with PHds in the real world  are too stupid to grasp the larger picture and are not the ones with the inventions.  Why they get brought in on a short term basis to look at one tiny aspect and then get fired soon after as they by and large are useless at anything else as they are too rigid. 

PS: All the INS(internal navigation systems) in downwell bore holes, missiles to Mars, Excalibur artillery etc.... all done by guys without PH'ds and Masters.  Ok, a couple of them got Masters in their 50's.  All the guys designing aircraft... Not a PHD in sight.  The guys who invented what we today call DSL & Cable were done by a bunch of guys who did not even have BS Engineering degrees let alone PH'ds.  They were interested in the subject and self taught themselves.  

All a PHD means is that you are disciplined, and dedicated to spending money you have not earned on education instead of teaching yourself. 

Doubtful. but you are right that engineers rarely get a phd; they are much more common outside of the faculty of engineering.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.