Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Such research is what canals and roads once were - a prerequisite for long-term economic vitality. The first Republican president revered Henry Clay, whose "American System" stressed spending on such "internal improvements." Today, the prerequisites for economic dynamism are ideas. Deborah Wince-Smith of the Council on Competitiveness says: "Talent will be the oil of the 21st century." And the talent that matters most is the cream of the elite. The late Nobel laureate Julius Axelrod said, "Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by 1 percent of the scientists."

U.S. undergraduate institutions award 16 percent of their degrees in the natural sciences or engineering; South Korea and China award 38 percent and 47 percent, respectively. America ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering.

America has been consuming its seed corn: From 1970 to 1995, federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51 percent. On a per-student basis, state support of public universities has declined for more than two decades and was at the lowest level in a quarter-century before the current economic unpleasantness. Annual federal spending on mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering now equals only the increase in health-care costs every nine weeks.

Republicans are rightly determined to be economizers. They must, however, make distinctions. Congressional conservatives can demonstrate that skill by defending research spending that sustains collaboration among complex institutions - corporations' research entities and research universities. Research, including in the biological sciences, that yields epoch-making advances requires time horizons that often are impossible for businesses, with their inescapable attention to quarterly results.

An iconic conservative understood this. Margaret Thatcher, who studied chemistry as an Oxford undergraduate, said:

"Although basic science can have colossal economic rewards, they are totally unpredictable. And therefore the rewards cannot be judged by immediate results. Nevertheless, the value of [Michael] Faraday's work today must be higher than the capitalization of all shares on the stock exchange."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02007.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Such research is what canals and roads once were - a prerequisite for long-term economic vitality. The first Republican president revered Henry Clay, whose "American System" stressed spending on such "internal improvements." Today, the prerequisites for economic dynamism are ideas. Deborah Wince-Smith of the Council on Competitiveness says: "Talent will be the oil of the 21st century." And the talent that matters most is the cream of the elite. The late Nobel laureate Julius Axelrod said, "Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by 1 percent of the scientists."

U.S. undergraduate institutions award 16 percent of their degrees in the natural sciences or engineering; South Korea and China award 38 percent and 47 percent, respectively. America ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering.

America has been consuming its seed corn: From 1970 to 1995, federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51 percent. On a per-student basis, state support of public universities has declined for more than two decades and was at the lowest level in a quarter-century before the current economic unpleasantness. Annual federal spending on mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering now equals only the increase in health-care costs every nine weeks.

Republicans are rightly determined to be economizers. They must, however, make distinctions. Congressional conservatives can demonstrate that skill by defending research spending that sustains collaboration among complex institutions - corporations' research entities and research universities. Research, including in the biological sciences, that yields epoch-making advances requires time horizons that often are impossible for businesses, with their inescapable attention to quarterly results.

An iconic conservative understood this. Margaret Thatcher, who studied chemistry as an Oxford undergraduate, said:

"Although basic science can have colossal economic rewards, they are totally unpredictable. And therefore the rewards cannot be judged by immediate results. Nevertheless, the value of [Michael] Faraday's work today must be higher than the capitalization of all shares on the stock exchange."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02007.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't George realize that it's all them over-educated commie perfessers that are the problem?

As long as we cut taxes on the rich to make it revenue neutral, this seems doable.

I agree with Will on this point, provided that we make spending cuts elsewhere and don't make the research universities de facto arms of the federal government by smothering them in regulatory "strings" attached to the funding. It's all a matter of resource allocation: the Chinese and Koreans certainly are no smarter than we are.

houndawg wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02007.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't George realize that it's all them over-educated commie perfessers that are the problem?

All we have to do is just hang a few of 'em, dawg.

The research is really that important.

I'm a little dubious of efforts like this. Not everyone is going to be able to handle science and engineering at the higher levels of education - that's just reality. We have such an imbalance now in terms of science degrees versus other degrees because we've made it a point that we want as many people as possible to have a college degree, whether they need one or not. So invariably, we have plenty of degrees now for people in soft majors like English and History and other liberal arts pursuits (not necessarily castigating those majors, they can be very useful if used appropriately). What are you going to do, though? Many of those people wouldn't ever be able to hang with a rigorous science major anyway. And I don't think dumbing down the science majors simply to get more graduates is really going to solve the issue anyway. I'm all in favor of improving the focus on science and math at the primary levels of education - if we get kids interested in science and math early on then you have a shot at them developing into people who want to and can take science majors in college - that's probably the best bang for the buck.

GannonFan wrote:I'm a little dubious of efforts like this. Not everyone is going to be able to handle science and engineering at the higher levels of education - that's just reality. We have such an imbalance now in terms of science degrees versus other degrees because we've made it a point that we want as many people as possible to have a college degree, whether they need one or not. So invariably, we have plenty of degrees now for people in soft majors like English and History and other liberal arts pursuits (not necessarily castigating those majors, they can be very useful if used appropriately). What are you going to do, though? Many of those people wouldn't ever be able to hang with a rigorous science major anyway. And I don't think dumbing down the science majors simply to get more graduates is really going to solve the issue anyway. I'm all in favor of improving the focus on science and math at the primary levels of education - if we get kids interested in science and math early on then you have a shot at them developing into people who want to and can take science majors in college - that's probably the best bang for the buck.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

And the talent that matters most is the cream of the elite. The late Nobel laureate Julius Axelrod said, "Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by 1 percent of the scientists."

This point is key. While improving math and science education in education is important, the most important thing is to make sure that the US has more of the pioneers in the sciences. Part of that is going to make sure we have H1B visas available for them. Just think of how things would be different if Bill Gates and other important pioneers in computing had done their stuff in countries other than the US. The US would not have the advantage in the tech industry that we have today.

Our remaining a super power is contingent on maintaining our advantages in the computer, aeronautical, automotive, and pharmaceutical industries. Not on whether or not we are still manufacturing pots and pans and blue jeans.

Pwns wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

This point is key. While improving math and science education in education is important, the most important thing is to make sure that the US has more of the pioneers in the sciences. Part of that is going to make sure we have H1B visas available for them. Just think of how things would be different if Bill Gates and other important pioneers in computing had done their stuff in countries other than the US. The US would not have the advantage in the tech industry that we have today.

Our remaining a super power is contingent on maintaining our advantages in the computer, aeronautical, automotive, and pharmaceutical industries. Not on whether or not we are still manufacturing pots and pans and blue jeans.

The U.S. needs ditch diggers too. Why not manufacture non-tech items here? And how about instead of importing expertise, we create some of our own? I think that's the point of the article. Screw Microsoft, HP, and their un-american off shoring.

kalm wrote: Why not manufacture non-tech items here?

If it can be made just as well and cheaper overseas, it will be made that way. People haven't and aren't going to pay a significant premium just to buy domestic. Railing against that reality is like shouting at the wind.

Ivytalk wrote:I agree with Will on this point, provided that we make spending cuts elsewhere and don't make the research universities de facto arms of the federal government by smothering them in regulatory "strings" attached to the funding. It's all a matter of resource allocation: the Chinese and Koreans certainly are no smarter than we are.

The problem is more cultural than fiscal. Jews aren't any smarter than anyone else but they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

CitadelGrad wrote: The problem is more cultural than fiscal. Jews aren't any smarter than anyone else but they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

And usury.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I agree with Will on this point, provided that we make spending cuts elsewhere and don't make the research universities de facto arms of the federal government by smothering them in regulatory "strings" attached to the funding. It's all a matter of resource allocation: the Chinese and Koreans certainly are no smarter than we are.

The problem is more cultural than fiscal. Jews aren't any smarter than anyone else but they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

Actually, Ashkenazi Jews DO have a higher intelligence, on average, than any other ethnic group. They also have a higher incidence of Sphingolipid disorders other Ashkenazic diseases.

AND they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

native wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
The problem is more cultural than fiscal. Jews aren't any smarter than anyone else but they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

Actually, Ashkenazi Jews DO have a higher intelligence, on average, than any other ethnic group. They also have a higher incidence of Sphingolipid disorders other Ashkenazic diseases.

AND they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

JSO, is that you?

Pwns wrote:

native wrote:
Actually, Ashkenazi Jews DO have a higher intelligence, on average, than any other ethnic group. They also have a higher incidence of Sphingolipid disorders other Ashkenazic diseases.

AND they have a culture that emphasizes academic excellence and achievement.

JSO, is that you?

No. Just Native.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote: Why not manufacture non-tech items here?

If it can be made just as well and cheaper overseas, it will be made that way. People haven't and aren't going to pay a significant premium just to buy domestic. Railing against that reality is like shouting at the wind.

Maybe so, GF. But it would be better to have factories in the U.S. paying $5 per hour than for the same laborers to be unemployed.

native wrote: Maybe so, GF. But it would be better to have factories in the U.S. paying $5 per hour than for the same laborers to be unemployed.

Well, first... they're getting less than $5 an hour.

Second... you do that and then 90% of minimum wage jobs are now paying $5 an hour... making the working poor even poorer.

What a crock of B.S.

God will take care of us.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

native wrote: Maybe so, GF. But it would be better to have factories in the U.S. paying $5 per hour than for the same laborers to be unemployed.

Well, first... they're getting less than $5 an hour.

Second... you do that and then 90% of minimum wage jobs are now paying $5 an hour... making the working poor even poorer.

First, wages in the U.S. would not have to fall to the same level as unskilled wages in China to make US products competitive in the domestic market. Even if wages fell lower than $5, it is still preferable for people to have productive jobs.

Second, if minimum wage laws were abolished, more people would be productively employed, skelly. A lot more! Minimum wage laws do not help the working poor climb out of poverty. Minimum wage laws simply destroy jobs.

Some of the working poor will work their way up, some will always be working poor. In either case, it is infinitely better not only for the economy and society at large, but for the working poor themselves that the greatest possible number of able-bodied laborers actually work productively and earn money. An expanded food stamp program and no minimum wage is infinitely preferable to our current labor market situation.

Pwns wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

This point is key. While improving math and science education in education is important, the most important thing is to make sure that the US has more of the pioneers in the sciences. Part of that is going to make sure we have H1B visas available for them. Just think of how things would be different if Bill Gates and other important pioneers in computing had done their stuff in countries other than the US. The US would not have the advantage in the tech industry that we have today.

Our remaining a super power is contingent on maintaining our advantages in the computer, aeronautical, automotive, and pharmaceutical industries. Not on whether or not we are still manufacturing pots and pans and blue jeans.

Points well taken, but it is equally important that every member of society values and celebrates the virtues of work itself.

native wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Well, first... they're getting less than $5 an hour.

Second... you do that and then 90% of minimum wage jobs are now paying $5 an hour... making the working poor even poorer.

First, wages in the U.S. would not have to fall to the same level as unskilled wages in China to make US products competitive in the domestic market. Even if wages fell lower than $5, it is still preferable for people to have productive jobs.

Second, if minimum wage laws were abolished, more people would be productively employed, skelly. A lot more! Minimum wage laws do not help the working poor climb out of poverty. Minimum wage laws simply destroy jobs.

Some of the working poor will work their way up, some will always be working poor. In either case, it is infinitely better not only for the economy and society at large, but for the working poor themselves that the greatest possible number of able-bodied laborers actually work productively and earn money. An expanded food stamp program and no minimum wage is infinitely preferable to our current labor market situation.

Third, factory labor is actually creating wealth for the domestic economy. Manufacturing creates wealth whereas most of the minimum wage paying jobs are just exchanging services. I'll mow your lawn if you cook me a burger.

I'm seeing your logic here Nate. Does that frighten you?

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
First, wages in the U.S. would not have to fall to the same level as unskilled wages in China to make US products competitive in the domestic market. Even if wages fell lower than $5, it is still preferable for people to have productive jobs.

Second, if minimum wage laws were abolished, more people would be productively employed, skelly. A lot more! Minimum wage laws do not help the working poor climb out of poverty. Minimum wage laws simply destroy jobs.

Some of the working poor will work their way up, some will always be working poor. In either case, it is infinitely better not only for the economy and society at large, but for the working poor themselves that the greatest possible number of able-bodied laborers actually work productively and earn money. An expanded food stamp program and no minimum wage is infinitely preferable to our current labor market situation.

Third, factory labor is actually creating wealth for the domestic economy. Manufacturing creates wealth whereas most of the minimum wage paying jobs are just exchanging services. I'll mow your lawn if you cook me a burger.

I'm seeing your logic here Nate. Does that frighten you?

Naaaw. I love ya, maaaan.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
Third, factory labor is actually creating wealth for the domestic economy. Manufacturing creates wealth whereas most of the minimum wage paying jobs are just exchanging services. I'll mow your lawn if you cook me a burger.

I'm seeing your logic here Nate. Does that frighten you?

Naaaw. I love ya, maaaan.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

The late Nobel laureate Julius Axelrod said, "Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by 1 percent of the scientists."

That's crap, just utter crap, but exactly what you expect from people at top tier places who think schools not in the Ivy League just as well might not exist. Science is constantly building and evolving, and a lot of the ideas come from relatively unimportant papers in disparate fields that are connected by a third person. But that ivory tower scientist is nothing without the raw data and lower tier papers that make his/her work happen. The egos of these people never cease to astonish me.


I'm all for more money for science and universities, but there are some key problems that should get taken care of first. For one, most of that money goes to paying graduate student and post doc stipends and, for grad students, tuition. Where I am, the stipend is $25000 or so, but tuition is $40,000. That money comes from the government (NIH), but tuition is a paper cost. I don't take classes (except made up ones that are auto-pass and exist solely so they can charge me tuition), its just my school bilking the government for money. The school also takes a sizeable cut of any grant money the lab receives; we got a $1.5 million grant and the school took $500,000 of it right off the top. Only a fraction of the money actually gets to the research, making NIH much more efficient than universities. The government should restrict how much cash can actually go to the institution and how much goes to the lab and actual research, and they shouldn't charge tuition for students not taking real classes. Some places (Scripps in La Jolla) don't take money from grants, and they attract top tier talent for it.

The bigger problem, IMO, is the law that states schools have to patent inventions resulting from research if the professor wants it done. This takes the focus off science and onto money. My boss won't move a finger to publish until his IP rights are lock solid; this not only slows the pace of research, but makes it much less likely for others to use our results for anything worthwhile. Maybe Pfizer will give him $25000 in cash to use the technology, but it only benefits him, not others. Add to that the fact that publically funded science leads to private profit. Its the same kind of thing that had people up in arms over TARP; money from NIH, NSF, DoD, etc. funded projects should get paid back to the government to some extent.

One thing that is changing (and its a good thing) is that everyone will have access to the results of publically funded research; before you had to pay ridiculous amounts of money to get access to the journals they're published in.

Scientists (well professors, anyway) by and large are egotistic assholes with a huge amount of disdain for 'regular people.' They just want your money and for you to shut up, because they know better. When it comes to individual projects, that's true. Politicians have no business decided what science gets funded (beyond broad scope stuff like NASA vs. cancer - those are societal decisions), but that means academics need to do a better job of self-policing and right now its crap. I can't tell you how many pieces of equipment I've bought that cost more than $50,000 and are the size of a laptop (and cost as much to make); they can charge that because its not our money that we're spending - it's yours.