4 ms·

The same problem was true for engineering/CS graduates in developing countries. The problem in that case was that the skills available did not meet the economic

by teyc 16y ago

The same problem was true for engineering/CS graduates in developing countries. The problem in that case was that the skills available did not meet the economic profile of the countries they were working in. For instance, labour may be so cheap it is not cost efficient to automate processes. In many cases, we need to properly analyze the chain of value creation, from basic sciences to applied engineering, and iron out the inefficiencies. Once this occurs, PhDs will again enjoy their proper place in the economy.

jgamman 16y ago
>we need to properly analyze the chain of value creation Central planning is ver rarely the answer. Besides, who is the 'we' in this proposition?
- teyc 16y ago
  > Central planning is very rarely the answer I disagree. That's dogma. Dogma is rarely the answer. The a lot of university's research already relies on public funds which is disbursed by a central committee. There is little private money in this space because the timelines and risks are too high. As for solutions, I heard of a few entrepreneurs who regularly visit university's technology board looking for interesting solutions that they can take to market. This is a kind of gap filling move that can be done broadly, provided the frameworks are realistic. I remembered a tale about IdeaLabs where they were spinning off a startup and decided to give the entrepreneurs 80% share of the company instead of the regular 20%. If a university has unrealistic expectations, then this can also curb the introduction of a technology/technique. Then there are some schools who do very good basic research but little in the way of translational research (e.g. medical trials, FDA approvals etc). The reason these may be occurring is because the way research funding works is that these activities are outside of their scope and ability.

by teyc 16y ago

jgamman 16y ago

>we need to properly analyze the chain of value creation Central planning is ver rarely the answer. Besides, who is the 'we' in this proposition?

teyc 16y ago
> Central planning is very rarely the answer I disagree. That's dogma. Dogma is rarely the answer. The a lot of university's research already relies on public funds which is disbursed by a central committee. There is little private money in this space because the timelines and risks are too high. As for solutions, I heard of a few entrepreneurs who regularly visit university's technology board looking for interesting solutions that they can take to market. This is a kind of gap filling move that can be done broadly, provided the frameworks are realistic. I remembered a tale about IdeaLabs where they were spinning off a startup and decided to give the entrepreneurs 80% share of the company instead of the regular 20%. If a university has unrealistic expectations, then this can also curb the introduction of a technology/technique. Then there are some schools who do very good basic research but little in the way of translational research (e.g. medical trials, FDA approvals etc). The reason these may be occurring is because the way research funding works is that these activities are outside of their scope and ability.