6 ms·

US certainly has a cultural problem, out of all major countries out there, US has a weird position where a significant population denies evolution/climate chang

US certainly has a cultural problem, out of all major countries out there, US has a weird position where a significant population denies evolution/climate change, and turned those topics into highly political charged issues. Also the US education system prior to college takes an another interesting aim to cultivate students' confidence, not by equipping them with logical training, but circumventing hard subjects like math/science, which is really ironic. A very lazy excuse to insufficient investment in maintaining their domestic pool of potential STEM candidates. While on the other hand, what China demonstrated here is, that it is totally possible for a poor country to bootstrap itself into a major science power, providing the society has strong focus on science education and an effective rewarding system to provide incentives to study science. Plagiarism concerns aside, it is pretty successful, otherwise we won't be talking about it here, let alone compare it against US. Maybe it's time for US to let it down its own myth about American exceptionalism, and revisit the true cause of its current lead in global research: large influx of foreign talents, first from Europe, then Soviet Russia and now China/India. US was lucky to have this constant grab of the best minds from the rest of the world, but sadly, or maybe not, I can't see this would continue. Time to wake up.

baybal2 8y ago
>Maybe it's time for US to let it down its own myth about American exceptionalism, and revisit the true cause of its current lead in global research: large influx of foreign talents, first from Europe, then Soviet Russia and now China/India. US was lucky to have this constant grab of the best minds from the rest of the world, but sadly, or maybe not, I can't see this would continue. That actually is US weakness, US always had to import talent. Grad school is strong in US thanks to being constantly fed by world class academicians ready to work for peanuts just to get name of a prestigious university on their resume. I will not say that US is that bad at growing homegrown talent, but it is worse at that than China. Much worse. To understand what's happening there, you have to think that in China, non-academic tertiary education is much bigger and stronger, and it feeds both the industry, and higher tier academic studies. In former Eastern Bloc, countries copied USSR's education system, and which itself copied from Prussia and pre-WWI German states. Few of its distinctive features: 1. Doctoral level studies are SUPER TOUGH, and you will be laughed off if you try attempt them without at least 10 years of graduate studies, and/or nomination for at least a minor scientific award. That's why Eastern Bloc masters level equal Western PhD. It never saw the academic credential inflation after WWII. 2. People are told off to avoid academia until they are totally committed and able to make an academic contribution. This true when we talk about first tier universities. 3. Lion share of people are totally fine with 2 year technical school programs. Chinese 2 year tech schools are definitely better than undergrad studies in US. Some are so good, that even comparing them to masters level in US wouldn't be a stretch. This is made possible by the fact that Chinese secondaries graduate much more prepared pupils, with both strong STEM and basic industry related vocational education. 4. Plentiful supply of tech school talents feed the industry, and keep educated labour cheap. And delivers universities a higher quality of candidate pool. Person's resume speaks better than artfully worded application letters the US universities are known for. 5. This allows university level studies to be what they were supposed to be originally: academic research, and not doing degree milling. Because research universities can afford to be picky with applicants, they can stay very focused. 1 in 150 admission odds for are know for some universities. Be sure that professors pick people with the highest promise, right aptitude, and people whose personal interests match their studies. 6. The industry and academia are don't go very far apart despite there being an iron wall in between academic and practical tertiary education. In overall, the distinction is between grunt workers and "highly skilled" category much, much less obvious than in US. Companies can recruit more schooled workforce in general in China, than in US. Having assembly lines staffed with real engineers is not uncommon, and the same applies for the rest of the higher tech industries: chemical, biomedical, semiconductor. And nowhere it is as evident as in computer programming, with outsourcing sweatshops being staffed by people with 6 year education (Chinese computer science school is terrible though.) Conclusion: Chinese academia being that strong is result of their undergrad studies being much stronger that American, and that itself is built on strong secondary education. But it is bad at retaining and attracting anybody qualifying as "world class"
- eastWestMath 8y ago
  Uh, I mean, I’m a graduate student at a pretty good Canadian school and this hasn’t been my experience with the Chinese undergrads I teach or grad students I’ve worked with. I’m not saying they’re weak or anything, I just haven’t really seen anything to suggest they’ve been through a much more rigorous education program.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    Have you considered the possibility that ones who study overseas are there because their exam scores simply made them ineligible to attend a university back home?
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      If anything I'd expect the opposite. US universities are more prestigious, you'd expect stronger students to be the ones who end up there (at least at better schools), because they'd have a much better chance of being admitted.
      - baybal2 8y ago
        Prestigious they may be, but their entry requirements are laughable by Chinese standard, and, most importantly, most are fine just taking money. There still is a reactionary part of Chinese society that is super obsessed with matters of class and status, or at least they are much more than Americans for sure. Not having your child getting into a university can be seen as a social stigma, and parent of such child will be socially ostracised. For such, having a child getting a place in US college for money with 100% certainty, is better than him/her taking risks with state exam back home.
        TulliusCicero 8y ago
        While it's true that many are eager to accept foreign students willing to pay more, the more prestigious schools still require good grades and test scores.
MisterTea 8y ago
> what China demonstrated here is, that it is totally possible for a poor country to bootstrap itself All the American and European companies who moved production there bootstrapped China. The money had to come from somewhere. China saw the immense opportunity in western greed and ran with it.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  USSR (for all its faults) achieved the same thing in a more hostile environment than the PRC.
  - obscurantist 8y ago
    The USSR achieved more than just the same thing. When you say more hostile environment, I'm assuming you mean they were in an essentially autarkic condition, unlike contemporary China. But beyond that, the Soviets produced far greater, actually novel results in sciences, mathematics, and technology while having only one-fifth of China's population.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  If anything, the Chinese education system is a ripoff from Soviet Union, not the Western countries. It is probably still is.
deegles 8y ago
Is it irony that tech companies spend millions every year on education initiatives, but don't do anything about climate change/evolution deniers on their platforms?
Someguywhatever 8y ago
>US certainly has a cultural problem, out of all major countries out there, US has a weird position where a significant population denies evolution/climate change This is not a manifestation of stupidity, I think it is motivated by distrust of authorities. Essentially: "If I agree that X is true, what will you do next?". If I don't trust what you will do, well then X cannot be allowed to be true. Since I need rhetorical ground to stand on and by giving up that position I'll have no position from which to argue against the policies that follow on, I choose not to agree with X. Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak. This logic is true for all political stripes.
- lmpostor 8y ago
  >This is not a manifestation of stupidity, I think it is motivated by distrust of authorities. I'm not seeing how those things are mutually exclusive.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    I don't think the GP was saying that they are, only that stupidity is not the driving force. They even said as much at the end: >Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak. For example, we're all aware of Einstein's flub wrt quantum mechanics, a mistake that was grounded in his religious beliefs. I think you'd have a hard time arguing he was a stupid man.
    - drunkongravitas 8y ago
      I wouldn't call them stupid. Though when irrational and unreasonable fear of a slippery slope result leads a significant portion of a population to deny the obvious to their detriment, I'm comfortable calling that a stupid action.
rafiki6 8y ago
Sorry what makes you think the second largest economy in the world is by any measure poor? These countries are quite wealthy, despite the fact that a large chunk of their populations are poor.
- drunkongravitas 8y ago
  oh-kumudo didn't call China poor, they said China was poor and now they're not.

baybal2 8y ago

>Maybe it's time for US to let it down its own myth about American exceptionalism, and revisit the true cause of its current lead in global research: large influx of foreign talents, first from Europe, then Soviet Russia and now China/India. US was lucky to have this constant grab of the best minds from the rest of the world, but sadly, or maybe not, I can't see this would continue. That actually is US weakness, US always had to import talent. Grad school is strong in US thanks to being constantly fed by world class academicians ready to work for peanuts just to get name of a prestigious university on their resume. I will not say that US is that bad at growing homegrown talent, but it is worse at that than China. Much worse. To understand what's happening there, you have to think that in China, non-academic tertiary education is much bigger and stronger, and it feeds both the industry, and higher tier academic studies. In former Eastern Bloc, countries copied USSR's education system, and which itself copied from Prussia and pre-WWI German states. Few of its distinctive features: 1. Doctoral level studies are SUPER TOUGH, and you will be laughed off if you try attempt them without at least 10 years of graduate studies, and/or nomination for at least a minor scientific award. That's why Eastern Bloc masters level equal Western PhD. It never saw the academic credential inflation after WWII. 2. People are told off to avoid academia until they are totally committed and able to make an academic contribution. This true when we talk about first tier universities. 3. Lion share of people are totally fine with 2 year technical school programs. Chinese 2 year tech schools are definitely better than undergrad studies in US. Some are so good, that even comparing them to masters level in US wouldn't be a stretch. This is made possible by the fact that Chinese secondaries graduate much more prepared pupils, with both strong STEM and basic industry related vocational education. 4. Plentiful supply of tech school talents feed the industry, and keep educated labour cheap. And delivers universities a higher quality of candidate pool. Person's resume speaks better than artfully worded application letters the US universities are known for. 5. This allows university level studies to be what they were supposed to be originally: academic research, and not doing degree milling. Because research universities can afford to be picky with applicants, they can stay very focused. 1 in 150 admission odds for are know for some universities. Be sure that professors pick people with the highest promise, right aptitude, and people whose personal interests match their studies. 6. The industry and academia are don't go very far apart despite there being an iron wall in between academic and practical tertiary education. In overall, the distinction is between grunt workers and "highly skilled" category much, much less obvious than in US. Companies can recruit more schooled workforce in general in China, than in US. Having assembly lines staffed with real engineers is not uncommon, and the same applies for the rest of the higher tech industries: chemical, biomedical, semiconductor. And nowhere it is as evident as in computer programming, with outsourcing sweatshops being staffed by people with 6 year education (Chinese computer science school is terrible though.) Conclusion: Chinese academia being that strong is result of their undergrad studies being much stronger that American, and that itself is built on strong secondary education. But it is bad at retaining and attracting anybody qualifying as "world class"

eastWestMath 8y ago
Uh, I mean, I’m a graduate student at a pretty good Canadian school and this hasn’t been my experience with the Chinese undergrads I teach or grad students I’ve worked with. I’m not saying they’re weak or anything, I just haven’t really seen anything to suggest they’ve been through a much more rigorous education program.
- baybal2 8y ago
  Have you considered the possibility that ones who study overseas are there because their exam scores simply made them ineligible to attend a university back home?
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    If anything I'd expect the opposite. US universities are more prestigious, you'd expect stronger students to be the ones who end up there (at least at better schools), because they'd have a much better chance of being admitted.
    - baybal2 8y ago
      Prestigious they may be, but their entry requirements are laughable by Chinese standard, and, most importantly, most are fine just taking money. There still is a reactionary part of Chinese society that is super obsessed with matters of class and status, or at least they are much more than Americans for sure. Not having your child getting into a university can be seen as a social stigma, and parent of such child will be socially ostracised. For such, having a child getting a place in US college for money with 100% certainty, is better than him/her taking risks with state exam back home.
      - TulliusCicero 8y ago
        While it's true that many are eager to accept foreign students willing to pay more, the more prestigious schools still require good grades and test scores.

MisterTea 8y ago

> what China demonstrated here is, that it is totally possible for a poor country to bootstrap itself All the American and European companies who moved production there bootstrapped China. The money had to come from somewhere. China saw the immense opportunity in western greed and ran with it.

rangibaby 8y ago
USSR (for all its faults) achieved the same thing in a more hostile environment than the PRC.
- obscurantist 8y ago
  The USSR achieved more than just the same thing. When you say more hostile environment, I'm assuming you mean they were in an essentially autarkic condition, unlike contemporary China. But beyond that, the Soviets produced far greater, actually novel results in sciences, mathematics, and technology while having only one-fifth of China's population.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
If anything, the Chinese education system is a ripoff from Soviet Union, not the Western countries. It is probably still is.

deegles 8y ago

Is it irony that tech companies spend millions every year on education initiatives, but don't do anything about climate change/evolution deniers on their platforms?

Someguywhatever 8y ago

>US certainly has a cultural problem, out of all major countries out there, US has a weird position where a significant population denies evolution/climate change This is not a manifestation of stupidity, I think it is motivated by distrust of authorities. Essentially: "If I agree that X is true, what will you do next?". If I don't trust what you will do, well then X cannot be allowed to be true. Since I need rhetorical ground to stand on and by giving up that position I'll have no position from which to argue against the policies that follow on, I choose not to agree with X. Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak. This logic is true for all political stripes.

lmpostor 8y ago
>This is not a manifestation of stupidity, I think it is motivated by distrust of authorities. I'm not seeing how those things are mutually exclusive.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  I don't think the GP was saying that they are, only that stupidity is not the driving force. They even said as much at the end: >Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak. For example, we're all aware of Einstein's flub wrt quantum mechanics, a mistake that was grounded in his religious beliefs. I think you'd have a hard time arguing he was a stupid man.
  - drunkongravitas 8y ago
    I wouldn't call them stupid. Though when irrational and unreasonable fear of a slippery slope result leads a significant portion of a population to deny the obvious to their detriment, I'm comfortable calling that a stupid action.

rafiki6 8y ago

Sorry what makes you think the second largest economy in the world is by any measure poor? These countries are quite wealthy, despite the fact that a large chunk of their populations are poor.

drunkongravitas 8y ago
oh-kumudo didn't call China poor, they said China was poor and now they're not.