OT: An answer to why the reduction in science and engineering majors in US universities

They are good engineers once they understand the problem. One team over there worked for 4 years on one I/O design of an IC. They never got it, but had some ideas. Our design team beat it in 3 months of work. But our design team was still expensive, owned hundreds of patents for the company and experience to no end. But fresh young minds that are easy to bend and enslave were cheaper.

Mart> >>> Several recent threads have pointed out the reduction in the

Some teachers don't get paid enough (the good ones), some get paid far more than they are worth (the bad ones) and stick around to collect a paycheck while doing nothing to try to actually motivate and teach the students. Meanwhile the school boards are busy with their petty politics and don't give a damn about the kids either. I've seen all three, along with a few mediocre teachers who sort of tried, but didn't quite make the grade.

So that's why I get those screwed up prints calling out a tap drill that will give a 120% thread...

ED, remember when they were laughing about blue collar jobs going offshore? They said tough, my job is secure I got an education.

The worm has turned.

Perhaps that's what the "well Qualified" actually means.

Qualified to put up with it...

Burger flipping is safe, but you have to be an illegal...

Well, if Tom Friedman is right and the world is flat then it's a matter of how many engineers are needed worldwide. It used to be that the US provided a good number of the highest educated engineers in the world. But that was back when the rest of the world lagged far behind the US. With a flattened world it's all about total world demand for a thing. Last year China had about a million engineers that graduated from their colleges. I think we had about 30,000 or something like that. With a disparity that large in the number of engineers being produced it's natural that since so many are coming out of China and its costing so little to educate them they are going to displace the ones coming out of the US. The world only needs so many of any profession and China is producing more of them at a lower cost. We all know what that means. We're being put out of the engineer producing business. We can add that to the list of everything else in which Chinese have replaced Americans. If it keeps going like this the only jobs left in this country will be bad ones or worse ones for most Americans and great high paying ones for a select few. Ah, that's capitalism for you. It's great isn't it?

It makes me wonder what Americans will be saying when for all intents and purposes the US will be undercut and put out of business in most areas by lower cost producers. Then Americans' standard of living will decrease as the nations that out competed us gain higher living standards. In the competition other countries will have more of the advantages necessary to win and we will end up a much poorer nation. But that is how global capitalism works. We used to have all the advantages over other countries. Now countries like China and India have the advantages. They will take over and we'll be the losers just like when the US took over from Britain and left them behind. Capitalism won't look so good to us then. The question is how much longer will it take before America becomes a second tier nation. We're already on the way and the "World Is Flat" has shown us what's coming.

Hawke

Just finished a review of this for a friend in Brazil. click on

If anyone is interested on my take see below

Observation on "The World Is Flat" ISBN 0-374-29288-4 by Thomas L. Friedman.

This is an interesting book, but fails to address several critical questions, and has a number of structural/procedural shortcomings. It is also a chilling book, rather like "Mein Kampf," where the master race is composed of certified Mensa members rather than pure-blood blond, blue-eyedAryans. No one can read this book and say they were not warned, although it may already be too late.

From the content of the book and several incidents Mr. Friedman includes, such as dropping of his daughter in New Haven to attend college (Yale), it is clear that he is an elitist and clearly a spokesman for the elite/oligarchy/plutocracy. Whether the views presented are his own, or are propaganda, ala David Ricardo, could not be determined. It is however clear from anecdotes describing his childhood that he was not born into the elite/plutocracy.

This book lacks any aggregate statistics (such as the GINI coefficient or median income) *ACROSS TIME*, and there are no regressions [econometrics / political econometrics] included which would allow a objective evaluation of the claims made. What are included are a large number of anecdotes, which as any researcher knows are highly subject to "cherry picking" and/or "file drawer bias." The repeated (implicit) citations of "they say" and "everyone knows" as sources and authorities raise considerable questions.

Many of the underlying assumptions are already dated, even though the book was published in 2004.

One example is the hand wringing about the possibility that oil may hit 50$ a barrel, and that it should be about 25$ per barrel to insure optimal global development, although American oil use through high taxes, must be controlled.

As of mid September 2007, benchmark sweet crude [Brent] has reached 82$ per barrel, and the OPEC nations show no inclination to reducing their national incomes by increasing production to reduce prices, as their policies are set by what they perceive to be in the "long-term best self-interests" for their countries and people, not what is theoretically "best" for some hypothetical (or imaginary) "brave new world order," thus demonstrating the backwardness of these governments and the urgent need for "regime change."

Note that much of this oil price "increase" is the result of the depreciation of the US dollar against other major currencies such as the Euro and Yen. When oil is prices in these more stable currencies or even in gold, the price rise is minimal to non-existent. It is not reasonable [or even rational] to expect the OPEC nations to [continue to] subsidize the unprecedented US budget and trade deficits by holding a constant dollar price on oil when many of the items they purchase are priced in Euros, Yen, and Pounds. Indeed, these nations, which held much of their foreign reserves in US Dollars and US Dollar denominated securities, have already suffered substantial losses because of the depreciation, and even more if they have "invested" in US Collateralized Debt Obligations [CDOs] based on sub-prime mortgages and/or leveraged buy-out/ private equity investments.

Another item which Mr. Friedman does not address is the extraordinary amount of direct and indirect subsidy international bulk shipping receives, to the extent that commodities that are literally "cheap as dirt," such as cement and glass beads for aggregate air blasting can be manufactured in low labor/environmental cost areas and shipped across oceans and delivered more cheaply than these can be domestically manufactured. The subsidies include not only fuel but also port facilities, frequently constructed at tax payer expense, or exempted from taxes, and in many cases includes deliberate failure to enforce existing regulations (or arbitrary upward revision) such as weight limits on trucks, which rapidly destroys existing infrastructure which has taken years, if not generations, to develop.

One recent example of this is the catastrophic failure of the I35-W Bridge in Minminniopolis, which is being replaced at taxpayer expense after being constructed at taxpayer expense. See

This segues into yet another omission in this book, which is an explicit definition of terms used, particularly qualifiers such as "better," and "best" used in the context of socio-economic systems and cultures. Apparently the only consideration is the GDP/GNP, and peripheral issues such as distribution of the wealth generates, measured as the GINI index or coefficient, are never addresses, nor are quality of life metrics such as longevity and infant mortality rates. Additionally, no consideration whatsoever of non- cash income such as subsistence agriculture is made.

Thus we have the example of people who have traditionally practiced subsistence agriculture with low cash earnings, but who were well fed, being force off the land and into ultra-high-density urban ghettos and slums to work for minimal wages. While their paper cash incomes may have risen, and theoretical opportunities such as access to education and healthcare improved, in reality they now suffer from mal-nutrition, considerably worse health because of overcrowding and sanitary conditions, and no educational or other resources are provide, leading to lives of crime and adult dependency. Their society/culture has been destroyed, in many cases their language lost, and their ethnic identity as a people ruined. The name for this is genocide, not globalization.

The arrogance and egotism of the one-world elitists, and their spokesperson Mr. Friedman, is unconcealed, totally outrageous, and is in direct contradiction to one of the fundamental axioms of democratic government, enshrined in the U.S. and many other constitutions, specifically "the consent of the governed."

One major failing of the globalization fanatics is to assume "historical inevitability." No considerations of alternatives to present trends are even considered.

It is clear that the doctrine of Corporate Globalization has replaced Marx-Leninism as the ideology of choice of the academic elite. Most of the characteristics of Marx-Leninism are present. "Historical inevitability" has already been mentioned. Pseudo scientific justification and logic, largely based on anecdotes and "appeals to authority" are another. Perhaps the greatest appeal to the academics, and the one insuring their cooption and preemption, is the assurance of the primacy of intellect as measured by formal academic degrees, and the establishment of a "dictatorship of the intelligentsia" in place of a "dictatorship of the proletariat." One item that is generally omitted is how many IQ points are added for every million dollars of capital assets owned or controlled by an individual.

Perhaps the worst legacy of the old communist system, eagerly embraced by the new "global village" government, is their readiness to make future [and conjectural] omelets by smashing huge numbers of present eggs, to the extent of putting the continued existence of the chickens at risk.

Unka' George [George McDuffee] ============ Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Um, teaching engineering and science in public schools -- you responded to Tim's discussion of his retired relative teaching in middle school. It was Pete who reacted to the NCLB comment.

-- Ed Huntress

Yes, but it isn't stopped turning. _The Economist_ keeps a running story going about it, and it's interesting to follow.

Salaries are 'way up in India over what they were a few years ago. It probably does look better right now for engineers in the US. But the point of this discussion, as I see it, is that it's become a risky career. What's next? Engineers from Zimbabwe for $8,000/yr.?

-- Ed Huntress

Your comment related to NCLB and teachers' unions. Do you have to contend with the consequences of NCLB in the community college system? Are you aware of its rating system, which keeps out those retired engineers that were the subject of discussion?

My point was that the unions were being blamed for the "closed shop" that kept out such prospective teachers. As I said, it's not the unions. They've been pleased with the alternate-route certification schemes for years. In one fell swoop, NCLB pressured schools to drop those programs -- except in rural and certain at-risk inner-city areas -- and to strive to have 100% of their teachers degreed and certified under the primary system. The schools are rated on their compliance. In combination with other factors, it helps determine how much federal money they get. My wife's school system now has

But I agree with Wes that the alternate route is a good idea in science- and engineering-related secondary school classes. It won't happen as long as we have NCLB.

-- Ed Huntress

As you say, though, it comes and goes like the tides. At one time a seat on the NYSE was a license to print money. Then it started to go south, and various kinds of arbitrage took its place, ending with risk arbitrage (Robert Rubin's former career). Then it was currency, and then a few other things, and, today, hedge-fund and private-equity-fund management.

Those jobs aren't very transferable so you have to make it quick. In some of those jobs, it's assumed you will commit suicide or quit before you're 50. They give huge bonuses and it's very déclassé to spend them. You're supposed to save $10 or $20 million or so for your early retirement.

It's not for me, although there are times...

-- Ed Huntress

I think you nailed it.

This is a variation on the old "guarantee" "you can make up to

When parsed, what this says is that we guarantee you won't make more than 200k$.

It as also an attempt to generalize from a very small selected sample to an entire polulation.

No sane person would encourage their child to be a golf pro with the expectation they will earn like Tiger Woods. To be sure there will be one or two that do, but the odds are better if you "invest" in Power Ball tickets (and a whole lot less work).

Unka' George [George McDuffee] ============ Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

From Mars, for $10 a week. ;-)

On Oct 2, 9:08 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: . But the point

Do you really think it is risky career? What would you think is a better course of study in college for a career? Not Art History.

Dan

People in the financial business and in law are advocating liberal arts. How's that for a surprise? Financial managers apparently don't want B-school grads like they used to.

If I wanted job security I'd major in some science and make sure I had teaching certification for chemistry and physics. The risk with engineering is the tides of offshoring. Without studying it closely, I'm loathe to recommend it.

-- Ed Huntress

#1. kill myself

Umm, no, too messy

#2. invent a gizmo, make it in my basement and sell it through eBay

Hmm, that takes hard work, but it beats #1.

Jon

Yeah, back in "the day", like the 1950's to 1980's, they could charge $100 for a single stock transaction. Now, anybody can do it online for $5.99 or something.

Jon

There's more to it. They want well-rounded employees who aren't trained to take over their businesses. That's always been the knock on Harvard Business: they're taught to win and to take over from you.

Many of the top corporations attend job fairs seeking "any major" for management positions. They're looking for individual talents, not what kind of occupational training you may have had, and the trend seems to be growing.

But that's not to say that B-school graduates are being shunned. They probably still get the lion's share of attention from potential employers. And engineers have to prove they can handle the math and science.

It's just interesting to me that there have been several stories in the business press over the past couple of years that there are a lot of top corporations looking for liberal arts grads, and law schools seem to be down on the "pre-law" programs of decades past. They want rounded students, too.

-- Ed Huntress