3 ms·

As each day passes very bright students are forced to not persue a higher level education in the U.S. Tuition and costs of living have doubled to tripled since

As each day passes very bright students are forced to not persue a higher level education in the U.S. Tuition and costs of living have doubled to tripled since 2010 with scholarships and funding dwindling. Why persue engineering, especially complicated engineering, when the companies that need it refuse to fund education. Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Google, all the big most wealthy tech companies refuse to put money into the future of U.S. engineering. Startups for chip tech is a joke. The knowledge and domain specific equipment necessary is so great that you can't just pick up a tutorial through Google and use a framework to make your product. We need to tax these behemoths and put that into the education and tooling of people. That's how we create competitive markets and innovation.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
> "refuse to put money into the future of U.S. engineering" What are you talking about? https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/higher-ed-overview.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/h... https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/university-research-programs.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/u... https://research.tsmc.com/english/collaborations/academic/university-centers.html https://research.tsmc.com/english/collaborations/academic/un... They are throwing money wherever they can find an audience. > "Startups for chip tech is a joke." Last time I checked, there was a startup called SiFive in the US from a bunch of UC Berkeley professors which successfully had its founders invent a whole new instruction set, RISC-V, a compiler for it, and are now building the highest-performing RISC-V chips on the market. https://www.sifive.com/ https://www.sifive.com/ > "can't just pick up a tutorial through Google and use a framework to make your product" Because Chips are extremely hard to make and engineer and there are things in this world that can't be boiled down to an internet tutorial. Imagine if we had "Building a Stealth Bomber" as an online course. Or even "Building a SpaceX Rocket" as a course. Chipmaking is more expensive than designing a rocket. This completely ignores the unbelievable difficulty of chipmaking and tries to reduce it to a CRUD application. > "We need to tax these behemoths and put that into the education and tooling of people." OK, by your own admission there is a ton of industry-specific knowledge. As linked above, fabs are trying to get into universities where they can, but finding qualified people is difficult. I don't know how taxation would help solve this problem in any way, because government is typically even less efficient at teaching domain-specific knowledge than industry.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Intel heavily funds and influences the curriculum at Oregon State as well.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Marketing. Unless you have receipts in hand Intel is not giving out money. They selectively choose specific institutions of where they draw from a pool of some graduates. The problem we find ourselves in is that we have no competition. If Intel is the only one funding, at very specific institutions, for their own gain, that's not competition. You need competition to innovate. You need a lot of money and equipment to learn. Intel is not putting that in the hands of any institution they don't control. I'm saying that you can't make a startup for chips out of nowhere like you can software startups. We have to have the underlying education first. The U.S. does not have this, and continues to fall over itself because tech companies have significant Democrat control that won't tax them.
PaywallBuster 5y ago
they're not responsible for the multiplying cost of tuition and living. plenty of state schools remain comparatively affordable and only reason for astronomical cost of life is NIMBY
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  I know of towns that have tons of free space, fiber Internet, decent weather and they haven't escaped the drastic increases in the cost of life.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Across the board tuition is 2-3x. That is for state schools with in state tuition. Out of state tuition is further criminal.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

> "refuse to put money into the future of U.S. engineering" What are you talking about? https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/higher-ed-overview.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/h... https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/university-research-programs.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/highered/u... https://research.tsmc.com/english/collaborations/academic/university-centers.html https://research.tsmc.com/english/collaborations/academic/un... They are throwing money wherever they can find an audience. > "Startups for chip tech is a joke." Last time I checked, there was a startup called SiFive in the US from a bunch of UC Berkeley professors which successfully had its founders invent a whole new instruction set, RISC-V, a compiler for it, and are now building the highest-performing RISC-V chips on the market. https://www.sifive.com/ https://www.sifive.com/ > "can't just pick up a tutorial through Google and use a framework to make your product" Because Chips are extremely hard to make and engineer and there are things in this world that can't be boiled down to an internet tutorial. Imagine if we had "Building a Stealth Bomber" as an online course. Or even "Building a SpaceX Rocket" as a course. Chipmaking is more expensive than designing a rocket. This completely ignores the unbelievable difficulty of chipmaking and tries to reduce it to a CRUD application. > "We need to tax these behemoths and put that into the education and tooling of people." OK, by your own admission there is a ton of industry-specific knowledge. As linked above, fabs are trying to get into universities where they can, but finding qualified people is difficult. I don't know how taxation would help solve this problem in any way, because government is typically even less efficient at teaching domain-specific knowledge than industry.

jimbob45 5y ago
Intel heavily funds and influences the curriculum at Oregon State as well.
devwastaken 5y ago
Marketing. Unless you have receipts in hand Intel is not giving out money. They selectively choose specific institutions of where they draw from a pool of some graduates. The problem we find ourselves in is that we have no competition. If Intel is the only one funding, at very specific institutions, for their own gain, that's not competition. You need competition to innovate. You need a lot of money and equipment to learn. Intel is not putting that in the hands of any institution they don't control. I'm saying that you can't make a startup for chips out of nowhere like you can software startups. We have to have the underlying education first. The U.S. does not have this, and continues to fall over itself because tech companies have significant Democrat control that won't tax them.

PaywallBuster 5y ago

they're not responsible for the multiplying cost of tuition and living. plenty of state schools remain comparatively affordable and only reason for astronomical cost of life is NIMBY

JaimeThompson 5y ago
I know of towns that have tons of free space, fiber Internet, decent weather and they haven't escaped the drastic increases in the cost of life.
devwastaken 5y ago
Across the board tuition is 2-3x. That is for state schools with in state tuition. Out of state tuition is further criminal.