9 ms·

When I was living in New Zealand twenty years ago, I often took the bus to get places. One day I struck up a conversation with the bus driver. Turns out he had

• koheripbal 5y ago
  That's why it's called overproduction - because there simply isn't demand for research in certain fields. The issue is society producing an elite with a skill set that isn't needed.
  • philipov 5y ago
    Suppose that the skill of the elites you produce is a normal distribution. There are only jobs for the best 0.001% of people in the field, but to get enough candidates that reach that 0.001% bar, you have to produce the other 99.999%. You're sifting through sand to try to get the flakes of gold. There might not be a need for the grains of sand that are produced by the system, but without filling the system with them, you wouldn't have been able to extract the gold that's mixed in. This is why elite overproduction occurs. Many of them may be perfectly competent individuals, but as long as employers are competing to hire only the best of the best, the system will have to massively overproduce to satisfy that demand.
    • stdbrouw 5y ago
      Except that's not what is going on. Usually, when the time comes to look for a new postdoc or a new professor, there are plenty of candidates of very high talent and future potential and committees end up deciding based on low-information signals such as publication count because otherwise they'd have no clue who to prefer. Of course you want there to be more PhDs than professors to allow for an additional selection for the very top talent at that point, but the current situation is that we're producing too much sand as well as too much gold.
      • philipov 5y ago
        The place where the sand/gold analogy breaks down is that the goalposts are constantly shifting due to competition. If I've hired the best person in the world, and they're the best out of 100,000 candidates, then if someone else also wants to find the best person in the world, they'll need to be better than the current best person in the world. It may take 200,000 candidates to find that person. To keep finding someone better than the current best person in the world, you constantly need to increase the amount of sand. To find the new best person in the world, you'll produce geniuses who are as good as the old best person in the world, but they're no longer good enough to be the NEW best person in the world. So yes, we're overproducing on gold, but now we're looking for something even better than gold.
        • stdbrouw 5y ago
          This presumes (a) a highly reliable ability to identify the "best person", which we simply don't have, (b) the idea that "best" is unidimensional and unrelated to the context one finds oneself in and (c) the idea that such a "best" person will also be the one who will do most to advance science. Just take a look at a century of Nobel prize winners and you'll see that none of those assumptions hold.
          • philipov 5y ago
            The assumptions don't hold in reality, but the myth of them holds in the minds of people doing the hiring, and that is enough.
        • ipaddr 5y ago
          They would cost too much. You take the second best and claim they are the best person on the market.
          • lupire 5y ago
            It doesn't cost too much, because the employer doesn't pay for it; the candidates do.
  • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "because there simply isn't demand for research in certain fields" Our society has enormous demand for clean energy, but it has completely failed to fund fusion research. We have spent more on lipstick and casinos. So physics researchers can't get decent pay while the world is going to hell in a handbasket
    • Dudeman112 5y ago
      That's a problem with how we think about demand, isn't it? If society needs some serious phlogiston research because of existential threats, but refuses to fund phlogiston research, can you say phlogiston research is in high demand?
    • revolvingocelot 5y ago
      The rhetorical trick here is the assumed definitions of "society" and "demand". Is there enormous "demand" for eg useless plastic garbage or non-nutritive fast food, or is that the choice-of-least-resistance offered to and taken by millions who lack the resources to consistently "choose" more "wisely", and lack the voice or knowledge to demand better choices? Or, why is food optimized for looks and uniformity rather than nutritive value? Does "society" choose how to allocate resources, or are there a handful of insanely powerful people whose hands rest lightly on an incredible variety of policy levers that they'll never move for personal financial reasons? Or, why is Australia so intent on coal production?
    • simonh 5y ago
      ITER alone has absorbed about as much investment as the entire Manhattan project, in inflation adjusted terms. That’s just one project to produce a prototype reactor. Fusion has been very heavily funded, to lots of hype but very little evident progress. Sometimes throwing money at a problem just isn’t the answer.
      • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Every year $731B is spent on US military, $380 B on makeup, 10.7 B on NSA, and measly $4 B on ITER by the whole world combined, of which US contribution is ~10% In what world is this pathetic level of funding adequate, let alone heavy? Do you realise the cost of this reactor is roughly in the same ballpark with 'normal' nuclear reactors? You claim there has been little progress, do you know that fusion has advanced faster than Moore's law?
  • ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I thought it was less about skillset than that implies. If you structure society so that the kids of aristocrats are the only ones that have degrees in basketweaving, then you can say "to get this prestigious job you need a degree in basketweaving" and it all kind of works (for the aristocrats). Non-aristocrats then do what they've been told will lead them into the elite, and at first a few might make it in. So it all seems to be working for everyone except those too ”stupid" (i.e. poor) to pay their way through 20 years of education in basketweaving. Meritocracy in action. But as it progresses, and more and more people follow the path things go wrong. Not because there's a limit to the number of basketweaving professionals needed, but a limit to the number of people who can be elite in the society, and that piece of paper used to be the limiting factor (previously acting as a proxy for "are you already connected to the elite")
    • revolvingocelot 5y ago
      And this doesn't even cover the sub rosa truth that the degree was never the actual ticket to aristocracy. The degree is a necessary, but insufficient, cause of aristocratic acceptance. There will be plenty of skilled yet mysteriously impoverished basketweavers; they aren't allowed into the Serious basketweaving studios because they, er, aren't a good cultural fit. Yet, thanks to cultural factors, basketweaving has never been more popular! Bright young people pour into degree programs and reckon they'll change it from the inside! There's even good examples of that sort of thing on TV all the time! Am I talking about public policy? Or urban planning? Or law? Or computer science? Or--
      • apercu 5y ago
        I like the way your mind works.
      • wyager 5y ago
        The other way of looking at it is that the degree used to be an accurate proxy for what actually mattered, like intelligence and field interest, but now with a billion people pursuing it because the money looks good, it’s not going to be an accurate proxy anymore.
  • dbspin 5y ago
    That's absolutely not the issue. The issue is an economic system that prioritises what can be readily produced and consumed, rather than the most degrees of freedom that can be created. Whether in terms of general purpose computing devices, or education that maximises individuals capabilities, skills and life satisfaction.
  • heresie-dabord 5y ago
    A clear definition of "elite" is needed to make any sense of this discussion. "People with Diplomas": We have many expensive diploma mills and some effective schools. "Educated people who work in their field of study": This is an unnecessary constraint on talent and interest. Also, education does not equate to talent or interest. "Rich People": We appear to have many, both conspicuous and inconspicuous. You're in the planetary top decile if you have healthcare, shelter, clean air, food, and water, and safety. "Leaders": We have a system to generate simulacra that protect the corporate assets. "Brilliant minds": Hard to produce by traditional means. We print diplomas instead.
• cryptica 5y ago
  In addition to racial discrimination, there is privilege discrimination (on the basis of luck). This can affect you regardless of race but of course it's likely worse when combined with racial factors. Privilege discrimination can be quite overwhelming because the media doesn't talk about it and the perpetrators of it don't hold back at all. Some ways privileged people discriminate against unprivileged/unlucky people (e.g. when competing for a promotion or investment): - "They are too negative, we need someone charismatic." (In fact, PersonX's exposure to wave after wave of bad luck has made them a critical thinker, a realist, which makes them perfect for the job). - "I don't like PersonX. They can't build rapport with stakeholders." (Because PersonX's has had real problems in their lives, they cannot relate to the artificial problems which members of the elite class constantly create for themselves). - "They lack confidence." (In reality, what they lack is overconfidence; they have the ideal level of confidence/doubt to navigate a cut-throat marketplace; overconfidence breeds neglect which can destroy the company). - "They don't have a track record of success" (Because they were always overlooked and never given a first chance to prove themselves; as a result, they've spent decades optimizing themselves and fixing every tiny flaw and gap in their knowledge and personal character; they are highly optimized and perfect for the job). There is an inversion of cause an effect in the minds of privileged people which makes them think that they need confident people. In fact, confidence is more a consequence of luck than it is of competence. Nobody likes overconfident people. When you have power, you don't need any confidence; the less, the better. Power earns respect and on its own, it is the best substitute for confidence.
  • NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    This feedback loop certainly does happen to some extent, but my intuition is that it's a small extent. At least in elite academia in the U.S. you get tons and tons of bonus points in every possible situation for being from an "under-represented" group (for some broken definition of "under-represented"). And yes, I benefit from this sometimes.
    • cryptica 5y ago
      I don't think it's a small extent at all. The idea that confidence/charisma is a good thing is at the heart of global entrepreneurial culture. It has become so deeply embedded into people's mindset that they don't even realize that it's a bias. They think leaders need charisma in the same was that you need oxygen to breathe. It's quite crazy though because so many charismatic leaders have turned out to be frauds; e.g. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Adam Newmann of WeWork, Trevor Milton of Nikola, and countless smaller examples which most of us have experienced personally in our own careers. On the other hand, many of us have seen or experienced the effectiveness of more modest critical thinkers in leadership roles. Jeff Bezos himself admitted that "[people who were right a lot of the time] were people who often changed their minds." Confident people don't change their minds because, in most settings, it projects a lack of confidence.
• NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  The non-white foreigner and attendant social status thing is hopelessly confounded with the "developing countries have extremely corrupt academia" thing. Outside of certain edge cases, it doesn't matter in the West that you have a Ph.D. and some papers if you got them in e.g. China or India. Read a little about those systems: exam results are routinely bought and sold, papers fabricated, whole journals completely made-up. edit And I should be crystal clear because finding opportunities to perform being offended is extremely popular these days: many of these people are actually brilliant and capable, the problem is the credentials do not provide a signal.
  • bovermyer 5y ago
    I'm aware of that. My dad's a university professor. In this case, though, the gentleman was from Japan, which is hardly a "developing" country.
    • NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      Ah, that changes things. Japanese credentials can be a little inscrutable sometimes, at least in my field. Their connections with the outside world's academics aren't as strong for us. I know that's not true in e.g. math. Wonder what's going on.
      • SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        I suspect it's largely a cultural issue. Japan isn't as outwards-facing as most countries, certainly most large countries. It's one thing to export pop culture, which it does very successfully, quite another to export academic products from such a different system. A system so different it probably doesn't descend from the original Academia at all, unlike most modern instantiations of scholarship.
        • MichaelZuo 5y ago
          What? The pursuit of knowledge does not require any intellectual hereditary descent from ancient Greece last time I checked. And the capacities of an academic culture is not correlated with closeness to the ideals of the ancient Greeks either. They rise or fail on their own merits.
• refurb 5y ago
  This is actually a problem in Canada. Lots of people complain about the US’s visa sponsorship process. Basically a company has to offer a job. Canada will give you permanent residency based on points. Whether or not a job exists. Not saying one is better than the other - they both have pluses and minuses.
  • 908B64B197 5y ago
    It's worse than that. Points are awarded for degrees. So foreigners just purchase fake degrees they can then use to immigrate. [0] Of course, no licensing board/employer would ever hire them. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHTg5zzFEKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHTg5zzFEKE
• nonameiguess 5y ago
  I don't know if New Zealand also does this, but the United States licensing and accreditation boards don't accept a lot of foreign degrees and licenses. I noticed this in particular after the fall of the Soviet Union. When I first went to college, it was LA City College, and in some way, if your grades were curved, it was probably the most competitive school in the country, because so many students in my biology classes had been practicing physicians and researchers with medical degrees and licenses from Soviet Republics that were starting over because US medical boards didn't accept their credentials.
  • BlameKaneda 5y ago
    I know of someone who was a practicing cardiologist (or a cardiothoracic surgeon, can't remember which) in her home country, but after she immigrated to the US she had to take on odd jobs. Studying and taking US qualifications would've set her back by some years, and it's possible she didn't want to go through it.
    • bsenftner 5y ago
      Similar story: my wife's male nurse during chemotherapy was a cardiologist in Eastern Europe, and at the time had chosen to be a nurse rather than go through medical school again.
  • Scoundreller 5y ago
    In New York State, you must be a citizen or lawful permanent resident to become a licensed pharmacist. No visa statuses permitted. Now that I think about it, I do wonder if this violates trade agreements (e.g. the successor to NAFTA)…
  • rayiner 5y ago
    My uncle was a doctor in Bangladesh. When he immigrated to New Zealand, he worked as a bell hop in a hotel while getting his medical degree and license again. Now he’s a doctor in Australia. Which is fine. A lot of these foreign degrees are pretty unreliable.
• bjarneh 5y ago
  I've heard similar stories from my own country (Norway). I get the feeling that we only accept educations (as valid or similar to our own) if they are from a handful of western countries. People with education from poor countries probably have to take the entire degree again, if they come here to work.
• Chris2048 5y ago
  > he had a doctorate and was a published researcher > as a non-white foreigner What was his field of study, and where was he from? Some fields are more niche than others, and I think biases are (understandably) more specific than entirely skintone based.
• eplanit 5y ago
  Or, rather than a societal problem, it's a case of someone with specialized skills moving to an island nation which had no opportunities for people with such skills (poor planning).
  • baybal2 5y ago
    I've seen plenty of engineers with 6 years education working on assembly lines in China. An incredible boon for whomever was employing them. Having a person who can "debug" equipment problems on the line within minutes, or optimise seemingly innocuous, but critically important, and impactful small tidbits in the manufacturing process is priceless, and this is what makes the whole difference in between a failing manufacturing line, and one which runs well.
• cerebrum 5y ago
  Please details. Which country and what doctorate. Lots of doctorates are useless. No surprise here.
• erfgh 5y ago
  Or maybe his doctorate is from a country where someone can buy one pretty easily.
• jdavis703 5y ago
  I’ve never been to New Zealand, so I can’t comment. But Silicon Valley is full of highly educated, non-white people working in high-paying jobs. America may have an overly restrictive immigration system, but at least we know how to put our immigrants in to good jobs.
• Dumblydorr 5y ago
  Well, what field and what journal? If he published in an Art History journal, it kind of makes sense. If he published in an elite engineering or Mathematics Journal, that's more surprising that he couldn't shift within STEM. But on it's face, Simply having a doctorate and a publication doesn't say much, you need to be from a useful field. Also, NZ is an island, wouldn't it be more wise to line up a job first before you move there?
• geodel 5y ago
  > Society seems to still have a severe problem with using talent effectively - whether that's elite experience or unskilled labor. No, I do not think so. Because it seems to me a lot of this talent is either 'self-described-talent' or grade-inflated talent'.
• foobarian 5y ago
  This reminds me of this related Soviet joke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25857120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25857120
• yobbo 5y ago
  > doctorate and was a published researcher in his native country. It reveals the actual role of these positions in society. They are not based on demand for a service, rather they are privileged positions awarded through a hierarchical selection process. In return, we get university teachers, which is the de facto service to society.
• 908B64B197 5y ago
  > but I always wondered how much the locals' perception of this individual - as a non-white foreigner - and his attendant social status played into it. Honestly, a lot of foreign universities are... questionable to say the least.