28 ms·

Because it works so well in China ? Also Ahmadinejad has a master in civil engineering, a PhD in transportation engineering, and has taught as a professor (app

Because it works so well in China ? Also Ahmadinejad has a master in civil engineering, a PhD in transportation engineering, and has taught as a professor (apparently he has returned to that job).

chrischen 10y ago
Is it not working well in China, or even Iran?
- candiodari 10y ago
  If you ask some Chinese, they're unlikely to be happy with the results. Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. How they're destroying the savings of the Chinese people. The total and completely endemic corruption ...
  - pen2l 10y ago
    > Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. Huh? Have you looked at it recently? Beijing has made incredible strides in solving air pollution problems. They turned around the situation quickly to pretty decent results -- give them some more time and I'm sure they'll do even better. China is not doing that bad. And I think one of the reasons why is in fact that high amount of STEM-educated folks in the politburo.
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      They did let it get pretty bad though, I was only there once in 2008 after the games and it was already pretty crazy back then.
      - pen2l 10y ago
        It was pretty bad around 2008. Now, 2017, it's not perfect but it's much, much better. They're on the right track. Separately, I want to say: judging per capita they're not doing bad.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    As was most any country going through their industrialization phase. And China has gone from a third world country to second biggest economy in 20 or so years.
- woofyman 10y ago
  Iran is a Theocracy and Authoritarian and China is Authoritarian. So I'd say, not so good.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>Iran is a Theocracy and Authoritarian Thanks to the CIA >>China is Authoritarian. Yes but I would argue they are making large strides in freedom, clearly they have a LONG way to go but you have to see the changes in both the government and the culture. Is this improvement a result of STEM leaders? Is America's decline in this area also a result of a regression in our Leaders? America used to have Inventors, Businessmen, even scientists as leaders.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      Just this comment light grey because of downvotes? Why would that be?
  - mastazi 10y ago
    I think the parent comment was sarcastic.
  - chrischen 10y ago
    If by authoritarian you mean that the government has all authority, the same holds for any stable government, including the US's. There are democratic procedures in China, even if it doesn't extend to every person. As an American you've most likely been indoctrinated to the American flavor of democracy, but even here our votes aren't all equal, as evidenced by the election of Trump despite having fewer popular votes (effectively disenfranchising some American voters). American democracy is only as perfect or democratic as can be given the constraints in its ability to amend itself (American government was designed specifically to move slowly and prevent concentration of power). It would be fallacious to think that America has the perfect representative governing system. The end goal is to serve the people, and while the government of China may be different, given that the American model isn't perfect, it means there's room for alternative systems to potentially serve the interest of its people in a better way. If you look at the efficacy of China's government, it's done pretty well objectively in lifting its population out of poverty. As much as US criticizes other governments, you have to realize the US openly admits its own citizens come first, which means you can't really take its criticisms seriously as in the best interest of its target.
bumblebeard 10y ago
The Soviet Union had a bunch of engineers in their government too and they made all kinds of stupid decisions anyway. I don't think the composition of the government matters as much as its structure and as governments go I think the US has a decent one. I think the problem is more who our politicians are listening to then what they actually believe themselves. Banning lobbying would probably do a lot more than just trying to elect a bunch of scientists and engineers.
- _delirium 10y ago
  The engineers may have even exacerbated some things, especially in the 1950s-70s, as they were more optimistic about rapid advances in (what was then called) cybernetic control than turned out to be warranted. It seemed within short term reach to have rational, data-driven optimization of large sections of the economy, but neither the technology, nor theory, nor data was there at the time to make that actually work. It's an interesting question what would've turned out differently if expectations of rapid advances turned out to be accurate, and they had 1960s USSR-level political resources paired with something closer to today's level of data-collection and ML technology. Central economic planning, but run by an engineering-bureaucracy with the resources of 2017 Google.
  - _yosefk 10y ago
    You mean today's computers can assign prices to existing products and decide which new products to develop better than the market? The iPhone coming out of a neural network which isn't close to passing even a pale shadow of the Turing test (which a lot of humans pass who certainly cannot develop new products or set prices better than the market)? I wouldn't put my money on it. (BTW Botvinnik, the first Soviet chess champion, was trying to push his (weaker than competition) chess-playing program as a basis for running the entire Soviet economy (he explained the weakness of his program for chess by it being more general than the competition; it apparently did not occur to him however that the fact that it lost to other machines and of course to people - this was 1990 - could perhaps mean it might run the economy somewhat worse than say a person. He was an engineer.)) As to electing engineers - let's put it this way: all else being equal, I'd rather be ruled by an EXPERIENCED ex-engineer (not just a guy with a degree) with a track record of achieving something, for which people who worked with them can vouch, than an ex-lawyer or an ex-journalist. But "engineer" by itself is not even a certificate of basic sanity, let alone the ability to lead someone somewhere other than the abyss, and for this HN's comment section provides ample evidence on a daily basis.
analog31 10y ago
In my view, the entire education process in China is ideological from the git go. Techies in China just happen to be more likely to be groomed for government positions. I suspect that non-Western countries have different preferences for what disciplines to study. For instance, they probably don't have much use for degrees in US law or European art history. STEM subjects happen to be more portable across borders, and can be turned into a job that can pay off more quickly -- a practical issue when you can't fall back on family money.
icebraining 10y ago
About a third of the PMs here in Portugal were also engineers, yet we're not exactly topping the charts of the EU (at least, not the good ones). As trivia, the current UN secretary-general - one of our former PMs - is a Physics and Electrical Engineering graduate.
caidh 10y ago
I think electing people from a wider range of backgrounds (instead of mostly lawyers) would be advantageous. Having some scientists, teachers, and many other educated professions, who can share their diverse perspectives with their other elected peers would be beneficial.
peter303 10y ago
In most parts of Asia there is strong societal and family pressure for males to major in STEM. Colleges oblige by renaming some subjects like economics and business and trades engineering. Then articles come out how the West is losing the STEM defree race to Asia. They are, but not as bad as it looks to these naming conventions.
peter303 10y ago
In most parts of Asia there is strong societal and family pressure for males to major in STEM. Colleges oblige by renaming some subjects like economics and business and trades engineering. Then articles come out how the West is losing the STEM defree race to Asia. They are, but not as bad as it looks to these naming conventions.
Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
You're being ironic, but of course it does work well in China. It is an authoritarian country (not the STEM minister's fault) but it's doing remarkably well in almost every other respect.

Because it works so well in China ? Also Ahmadinejad has a master in civil engineering, a PhD in transportation engineering, and has taught as a professor (apparently he has returned to that job).

chrischen 10y ago

Is it not working well in China, or even Iran?

candiodari 10y ago
If you ask some Chinese, they're unlikely to be happy with the results. Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. How they're destroying the savings of the Chinese people. The total and completely endemic corruption ...
- pen2l 10y ago
  > Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. Huh? Have you looked at it recently? Beijing has made incredible strides in solving air pollution problems. They turned around the situation quickly to pretty decent results -- give them some more time and I'm sure they'll do even better. China is not doing that bad. And I think one of the reasons why is in fact that high amount of STEM-educated folks in the politburo.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    They did let it get pretty bad though, I was only there once in 2008 after the games and it was already pretty crazy back then.
    - pen2l 10y ago
      It was pretty bad around 2008. Now, 2017, it's not perfect but it's much, much better. They're on the right track. Separately, I want to say: judging per capita they're not doing bad.
- mistermann 10y ago
  As was most any country going through their industrialization phase. And China has gone from a third world country to second biggest economy in 20 or so years.
woofyman 10y ago
Iran is a Theocracy and Authoritarian and China is Authoritarian. So I'd say, not so good.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>Iran is a Theocracy and Authoritarian Thanks to the CIA >>China is Authoritarian. Yes but I would argue they are making large strides in freedom, clearly they have a LONG way to go but you have to see the changes in both the government and the culture. Is this improvement a result of STEM leaders? Is America's decline in this area also a result of a regression in our Leaders? America used to have Inventors, Businessmen, even scientists as leaders.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Just this comment light grey because of downvotes? Why would that be?
- mastazi 10y ago
  I think the parent comment was sarcastic.
- chrischen 10y ago
  If by authoritarian you mean that the government has all authority, the same holds for any stable government, including the US's. There are democratic procedures in China, even if it doesn't extend to every person. As an American you've most likely been indoctrinated to the American flavor of democracy, but even here our votes aren't all equal, as evidenced by the election of Trump despite having fewer popular votes (effectively disenfranchising some American voters). American democracy is only as perfect or democratic as can be given the constraints in its ability to amend itself (American government was designed specifically to move slowly and prevent concentration of power). It would be fallacious to think that America has the perfect representative governing system. The end goal is to serve the people, and while the government of China may be different, given that the American model isn't perfect, it means there's room for alternative systems to potentially serve the interest of its people in a better way. If you look at the efficacy of China's government, it's done pretty well objectively in lifting its population out of poverty. As much as US criticizes other governments, you have to realize the US openly admits its own citizens come first, which means you can't really take its criticisms seriously as in the best interest of its target.

bumblebeard 10y ago

The Soviet Union had a bunch of engineers in their government too and they made all kinds of stupid decisions anyway. I don't think the composition of the government matters as much as its structure and as governments go I think the US has a decent one. I think the problem is more who our politicians are listening to then what they actually believe themselves. Banning lobbying would probably do a lot more than just trying to elect a bunch of scientists and engineers.

_delirium 10y ago
The engineers may have even exacerbated some things, especially in the 1950s-70s, as they were more optimistic about rapid advances in (what was then called) cybernetic control than turned out to be warranted. It seemed within short term reach to have rational, data-driven optimization of large sections of the economy, but neither the technology, nor theory, nor data was there at the time to make that actually work. It's an interesting question what would've turned out differently if expectations of rapid advances turned out to be accurate, and they had 1960s USSR-level political resources paired with something closer to today's level of data-collection and ML technology. Central economic planning, but run by an engineering-bureaucracy with the resources of 2017 Google.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  You mean today's computers can assign prices to existing products and decide which new products to develop better than the market? The iPhone coming out of a neural network which isn't close to passing even a pale shadow of the Turing test (which a lot of humans pass who certainly cannot develop new products or set prices better than the market)? I wouldn't put my money on it. (BTW Botvinnik, the first Soviet chess champion, was trying to push his (weaker than competition) chess-playing program as a basis for running the entire Soviet economy (he explained the weakness of his program for chess by it being more general than the competition; it apparently did not occur to him however that the fact that it lost to other machines and of course to people - this was 1990 - could perhaps mean it might run the economy somewhat worse than say a person. He was an engineer.)) As to electing engineers - let's put it this way: all else being equal, I'd rather be ruled by an EXPERIENCED ex-engineer (not just a guy with a degree) with a track record of achieving something, for which people who worked with them can vouch, than an ex-lawyer or an ex-journalist. But "engineer" by itself is not even a certificate of basic sanity, let alone the ability to lead someone somewhere other than the abyss, and for this HN's comment section provides ample evidence on a daily basis.

analog31 10y ago

In my view, the entire education process in China is ideological from the git go. Techies in China just happen to be more likely to be groomed for government positions. I suspect that non-Western countries have different preferences for what disciplines to study. For instance, they probably don't have much use for degrees in US law or European art history. STEM subjects happen to be more portable across borders, and can be turned into a job that can pay off more quickly -- a practical issue when you can't fall back on family money.

icebraining 10y ago

About a third of the PMs here in Portugal were also engineers, yet we're not exactly topping the charts of the EU (at least, not the good ones). As trivia, the current UN secretary-general - one of our former PMs - is a Physics and Electrical Engineering graduate.

caidh 10y ago

I think electing people from a wider range of backgrounds (instead of mostly lawyers) would be advantageous. Having some scientists, teachers, and many other educated professions, who can share their diverse perspectives with their other elected peers would be beneficial.

peter303 10y ago

In most parts of Asia there is strong societal and family pressure for males to major in STEM. Colleges oblige by renaming some subjects like economics and business and trades engineering. Then articles come out how the West is losing the STEM defree race to Asia. They are, but not as bad as it looks to these naming conventions.

peter303 10y ago

Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago

You're being ironic, but of course it does work well in China. It is an authoritarian country (not the STEM minister's fault) but it's doing remarkably well in almost every other respect.