 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> people lack basic problem-solving and analysis skills.
>
> My favorite was in some store where the clerk had to use a calculator to
> calculate 60% off a $20 item. And then she couldn't figure out whether
> to charge us $12 or give us back $12.
Exhibit A: Verizon Math Fail.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-9-2009 13:20, Invisible wrote:
> Somewhere somebody probably has all sorts of interesting statistics.
> Damned if I know how to find them though...
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-9-2009 1:30, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> In many technical areas (except perhaps engineering), the US has
> been consistently behind those and other countries for most of the 20th
> century.
>
> Yet it doesn't hurt the country much.
That is because it is freeloading on other countries investments in
education. For technical areas they have to import most of the PhD
students from countries that still have an adequate education system. Or
they simply import them after graduation. Even the ones that are
homegrown are mainly from asian stock, from families that are not long
enough in the US to have abandoned the idea that you have to study to
get a good job. When they have been in the US for one or two generations
they have found out that in stead of doing something productive or
something that requires you to use your brain, it is easier to study law
or something similar. Then you don't have to worry about getting your
grade and you earn more than when working as a technician or craftsman.
OK, I admit, that is somewhat of a generalization.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/25/09 13:55, andrel wrote:
> On 25-9-2009 1:30, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> In many technical areas (except perhaps engineering), the US has been
>> consistently behind those and other countries for most of the 20th
>> century.
>>
>> Yet it doesn't hurt the country much.
>
>
> That is because it is freeloading on other countries investments in
> education. For technical areas they have to import most of the PhD
> students from countries that still have an adequate education system. Or
> they simply import them after graduation. Even the ones that are
> homegrown are mainly from asian stock, from families that are not long
> enough in the US to have abandoned the idea that you have to study to
> get a good job. When they have been in the US for one or two generations
> they have found out that in stead of doing something productive or
> something that requires you to use your brain, it is easier to study law
> or something similar. Then you don't have to worry about getting your
> grade and you earn more than when working as a technician or craftsman.
>
> OK, I admit, that is somewhat of a generalization.
Yes, but even if true, my point is still mildly valid. Having a top
education system need not be a priority, if you can convince smart
enough people to come here.
It's likely a mix of both, and I'm inclined to lean more heavily
towards what I said: Have a significantly better average will get you
further. Also helps that the US has a lot of people, so even with a poor
education system the number of outliers will still be significant.
--
Blessed are the censors, for they shall inhibit the earth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-9-2009 1:57, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/25/09 13:55, andrel wrote:
>> On 25-9-2009 1:30, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> In many technical areas (except perhaps engineering), the US has been
>>> consistently behind those and other countries for most of the 20th
>>> century.
>>>
>>> Yet it doesn't hurt the country much.
>>
>>
>> That is because it is freeloading on other countries investments in
>> education. For technical areas they have to import most of the PhD
>> students from countries that still have an adequate education system. Or
>> they simply import them after graduation. Even the ones that are
>> homegrown are mainly from asian stock, from families that are not long
>> enough in the US to have abandoned the idea that you have to study to
>> get a good job. When they have been in the US for one or two generations
>> they have found out that in stead of doing something productive or
>> something that requires you to use your brain, it is easier to study law
>> or something similar. Then you don't have to worry about getting your
>> grade and you earn more than when working as a technician or craftsman.
>>
>> OK, I admit, that is somewhat of a generalization.
>
> Yes, but even if true, my point is still mildly valid. Having a top
> education system need not be a priority, if you can convince smart
> enough people to come here.
True, but not all donor countries might think that is a desirable
situation.
Second, it works as long as the US is the most desirable country for a
scientist to live in. When another country takes that position, the US
has not enough trained people to fill the gap. There is a large
probability that this will create a downward spiral.
To prevent that the US need a couple of big changes:
- reform the education system
- make sure that someone with knowledge or skills earns more than a
lawyer (i.e. fix the juridical system)
- reform the health care system (I am not going to move to the US and
this is a major reason. I am assuming it is for others as well and that
that will increase with time, and that it may become a factor for people
to actually leave the US)
- probably fixing the financial system might help too. The 'extravagant'
lifestyle in the US has been sponsored by foreign countries. When they
stop doing that the US may lack the money to buy the top-researchers
from other countries.
> It's likely a mix of both, and I'm inclined to lean more heavily
> towards what I said: Have a significantly better average will get you
> further. Also helps that the US has a lot of people, so even with a poor
> education system the number of outliers will still be significant.
The really smart are education resistant, they will learn and understand
in any educational model, but you need more than that 0.1% for a healthy
economy. Besides, you want them in relevant positions. Not solely in the
financial market and other places where they can make a lot of money for
themselves without contributing anything to society.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/26/09 09:52, andrel wrote:
>> Yes, but even if true, my point is still mildly valid. Having a top
>> education system need not be a priority, if you can convince smart
>> enough people to come here.
>
> True, but not all donor countries might think that is a desirable
> situation.
Well, they should shape up and try to keep their people around.
I don't know how it is in your country, but in a lot of countries -
including industrialized ones - the flexibility to change your career
path is not that great. In some places, if you start one program, and
halfway through university you want to switch, the system makes it hard
for you. Over here, it's trivial. I know lots of people who go to grad
school in areas quite different from their undergrad. And you can change
your path at just about any point within your undergrad.
And then there are lots who have trouble getting into university
whereas they wouldn't have over here.
I knew an exchange student from Germany. In his university, they more
or less have a quota: Only the top n% of students at the end of the
first year will be allowed to stay.
The rest weren't completely discarded, and they got to go to other
institutions, but they couldn't quite study what they wanted. Under
those circumstances, I can easily see people going to another country to
study if they could afford it.
> Second, it works as long as the US is the most desirable country for a
> scientist to live in. When another country takes that position, the US
> has not enough trained people to fill the gap. There is a large
Perhaps.
> To prevent that the US need a couple of big changes:
> - reform the education system
Perhaps a bit overstated. There are always really good schools and
colleges. The bad news focuses more on the average ones. The good ones
may be expensive, though.
> - make sure that someone with knowledge or skills earns more than a
> lawyer (i.e. fix the juridical system)
Never gonna happen.<G>
> - reform the health care system (I am not going to move to the US and
> this is a major reason. I am assuming it is for others as well and that
> that will increase with time, and that it may become a factor for people
> to actually leave the US)
Well, when I wrote "perhaps" above, I was going to point out that in
many regards, the US isn't the most desirable country. It's good mostly for:
- Money
- A lot of a certain kind of freedom. Over here the society is really
flexible. They may think foreigners act weird, but it rarely bothers
them. They're flexible in many other ways. My advisor and his wife were
from Belgium. He came to the university here with short term goals -
perhaps would spend 2-3 years and then return. His wife knew no English.
She was so happy how she was treated as a foreigner that she insisted on
staying. And she really liked the ease with which you can do stuff.
Once, while on a sabbatical in Switzerland, she tried to get a
membership at a gym. The amount of paperwork they wanted from her as a
nonresident was ridiculous, and I think she gave up. Just to go to a
gym. Of course, perhaps that wouldn't be a problem in all European
countries, but it's a common complaint I hear from them when they come
here.
But in most other categories (like health care), other industrialized
countries do better.
Also, the US seems to be really good at marketing. It may not fool you
Europeans, but it probably does fool all the smart people in third world
countries who want to come here (with the exception of those the US has
screwed - although even lots of those guys come).
> - probably fixing the financial system might help too. The 'extravagant'
> lifestyle in the US has been sponsored by foreign countries. When they
> stop doing that the US may lack the money to buy the top-researchers
> from other countries.
Possible.
> The really smart are education resistant, they will learn and understand
> in any educational model, but you need more than that 0.1% for a healthy
That's the mentality I reject. I'd rather phrase it as "there will
always be really smart people who learn regardless of the model".
I'll also say that some people who would have turned out to be
brilliant had there been a model that catered to them won't because they
went through an easier model. That's perhaps the flaw of the US system
(pre-university at least): People who perhaps could be smart/brilliant
just aren't challenged enough and they don't develop the skills early
enough.
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> - make sure that someone with knowledge or skills earns more than a
> lawyer (i.e. fix the juridical system)
What makes you think lawyers don't have knowledge and skills? Admittedly,
it's "stamp collecting" knowledge rather than "fact finding" knowledge, but
it's still a whole bunch of study as well as a fairly brutal test at the end.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Out of curiosity, I have a question. In the USA, there's a stereotype that
immigrants with few skills can still get jobs, even if they're low-paying.
Indeed, such a stereotype is mocked in movies like Men in Black, when they
find some typical ethnic stuff on the street and one of them shouts "He took
a cab!" I.e., there's always cab-driving jobs, burger flipping jobs,
restaurant jobs, etc. At least, that's the stereotype?
Do other european countries have this, either as a stereotype or a fact?
Would it be reasonable for a chinese person with awful French to immigrate
to France and find work to do? How about a Spanish person (i.e., from within
europe)?
Just curious.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:48:33 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Do other european countries have this, either as a stereotype or a fact?
>Would it be reasonable for a chinese person with awful French to immigrate
>to France and find work to do?
In London's China Town there are a lot of people, in low level jobs, who only
speak Cantonese.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-9-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> - make sure that someone with knowledge or skills earns more than a
>> lawyer (i.e. fix the juridical system)
>
> What makes you think lawyers don't have knowledge and skills?
> Admittedly, it's "stamp collecting" knowledge rather than "fact finding"
> knowledge, but it's still a whole bunch of study as well as a fairly
> brutal test at the end.
In case it was not clear, I was mocking a bit. But I was also a bit
serious. I could do a lengthy explanation, but perhaps it is enough to
say that I think most of the best earning lawyers belong in ship B of
the Golgafrincham Ark Fleet. Many of them have a good set of brains that
might have been more productive elsewhere, but then they would not earn
as much. There are also lawyers that are important to society but these
earn not nearly as much.
Second, my own experience with the study of law and its students. In the
Netherlands these law students are the ones that are most visible to the
general public and the main reason students are associated with lazy,
drinking, right wing party goers. There are students that study it
because they are interested in it, but a large proportion simply does it
to get a job in whatever the old boys network provides (and until about
the 80s, women often did it to find a husband). There may be a 'brutal'
test at the end, but in physics we studied a lot more and still the
percentage that graduates is way lower than in law.
Somebody once said: 'why would I study hard to be a physicist for 5
years, while I can also do law and be the manager of a group of
physicist, earn more, and have 4 years of partying at uni instead?'
In the US you might add to that: why would I study hard to be a doctor,
while I can also do law and sue them?
Ok, this lacks some some subtleties, and yes, IANAL.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
