US 21st in the world in science and math graduates

[Victus]

ubs wrote

Does it matter if the market demand is high?

It should.

Allegedly, the whole reason that we're supposed to be concerned about the relative differences in STEM graduates is that said individuals are the drivers of innovation (people, of course, forget that innovation doesn't stop at national borders). How much innovation do we get from an unemployed engineer, or an engineer employed as a waiter because there's no (additional) demand for his skill-set?

ubs wrote

The public paid to have our collective youths educated in a particular way, and the education fell short as determined by an agreed upon measure - comparative excellence.

Not even comparative excellence, simply the completion of a particular degree type.

ubs wrote

Since our performance was higher when money was spent at the local level, we should return to that model.

In absolute terms, performance wasn't higher. It's just that the rest of the world caught up.

ubs wrote

I think the chart on stem vs non stem unemployment speaks more to social mobility - or lack of - than it does to the value of Math.

Except that it's not the case that people are being frozen out of tertiary education - in the US, they're simply choosing not to take STEM courses because people find them more difficult/unpleasant. STEM courses have high dropout and non-completion rates, and their share of degree holders has been falling over time (as the total number of degree holders has gone up). Not what you might expect from a mobility problem.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

It should.

Don't judge us Bro!

Victus wrote

Allegedly, the whole reason that we're supposed to be concerned about the relative differences in STEM graduates is that said individuals are the drivers of innovation (people, of course, forget that innovation doesn't stop at national borders). How much innovation do we get from an unemployed engineer, or an engineer employed as a waiter because there's no (additional) demand for his skill-set?

Maybe we just want it. It's not your place to tell us how to spend our money. If we want to have the most basket weavers, clearly communicate that desire and pay to have the most basket weavers, we have a legitimate gripe if we don't get them. Educators engaged in false advertising. They violated a contract and should be dealt with accordingly!

Victus wrote

In absolute terms, performance wasn't higher. It's just that the rest of the world caught up.

The desire was to have more than everyone else. We don't care about genius, we just want to be the one eyed king.

Victus wrote

Except that it's not the case that people are being frozen out of tertiary education -

The chart was about employment, not number of graduates and it demonstrated that during certain period it was a statistical disadvantage to be the most qualified. That means some criteria other than ability is being used in the evaluation of candidates for hire, and any expression of personal prejudice on the part of business owners is a sign of market inefficiency. Market inefficiency equals social immobility.

[Brick]

An alternative view

What’s more, China’s tally of 350,000 was suspect because China’s definition of “engineering” was not consistent with that of U.S. educators. Some “engineers” were auto mechanics or technicians, for example. We didn’t dispute that China was and is dramatically increasing its output of what it calls engineers. This year, China will graduate more than 1 million (and India, close to 500,000). But the skills of these engineers are so poor that comparisons don’t make sense. We predicted that Chinese engineers would face unemployment. Indeed, media reports have confirmed that the majority of Chinese engineers don’t take engineering jobs but become bureaucrats or factory workers.

As for the comment about US politicians not caring about education, the Dept. of Education budget has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

[Professor Chaos]

Good job, Brick.

More fun with numbers:

Education spending in 1980 - $152 billion. 16.2% of total $940 billion spend.

Education spending in 2011 - $900 billion. 14.5% of total $6.2 trillion spend.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

Don't judge us Bro!

*judges*

ubs wrote

Maybe we just want it.

Maybe some of you want it, but the group actually in place to make the decision, the students, appear to have other plans for their lives. Apparently they would prefer to study business, law, and the social sciences.

ubs wrote

It's not your place to tell us how to spend our money.

It's as much my business to tell you as it is for you to tell the people you're getting the money from in the first place.

ubs wrote

If we want to have the most basket weavers, clearly communicate that desire and pay to have the most basket weavers, we have a legitimate gripe if we don't get them.

Simple economics dictates that if you want more basket weavers, make baskets more profitable.

ubs wrote

Educators engaged in false advertising. They violated a contract and should be dealt with accordingly!

What contract?

Admit it, economic illiteracy feels good even when feigned.

ubs wrote

The desire was to have more than everyone else. We don't care about genius, we just want to be the one eyed king.

Err... valid point. I suppose.

ubs wrote

The chart was about employment, not number of graduates and it demonstrated that during certain period it was a statistical disadvantage to be the most qualified.

Nope, it demonstrated that it was a disadvantage to be educated in a particular (cluster of) qualifications. The level of qualification is roughly constant on the chart (> bachelor).

ubs wrote

That means some criteria other than ability is being used in the evaluation of candidates for hire, and any expression of personal prejudice on the part of business owners is a sign of market inefficiency. Market inefficiency equals social immobility.

Not necessarily. The bulge in STEM hiring occurred in the early 2000s. What happened then that might have specifically reduced demand for (at least some) STEM graduates? Some kind of dot-com bust, perhaps?

[Brick]

Professor Chaos wrote

Good job, Brick.

More fun with numbers:

Education spending in 1980 - $152 billion. 16.2% of total $940 billion spend.

Education spending in 2011 - $900 billion. 14.5% of total $6.2 trillion spend.

The % decreased because other areas of the budget increased even more. Your point?

[Victus]

Brick wrote

An alternative view

As for the comment about US politicians not caring about education, the Dept. of Education budget has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

Professor Chaos wrote

Good job, Brick.

More fun with numbers:

Education spending in 1980 - $152 billion. 16.2% of total $940 billion spend.

Education spending in 2011 - $900 billion. 14.5% of total $6.2 trillion spend.

You two are being too rational about this. Obviously we need to think with our hearts about education!!! If spending money doesn't improve outcomes, then the only obvious thing to do is increase spending even more. WHY AREN'T YOU PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT THE CHIDLRENS!?!?!?

[Brick]

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Admit it, economic illiteracy feels good even when feigned.

It tastes faintly of almonds.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

It tastes faintly of almonds.

I see what you did there.

[Kinich Ahau]

Whatever the argument here, there is one clear benefit of further education.

[Stargazer]

This one's for you, Victus! Just found this article:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...te?sc=fb&cc=fp

[West491]

Good find,I enjoyed every bit of that, including some of the comments.

[Stargazer]

West491 wrote

Good find,I enjoyed every bit of that, including some of the comments.

Thanks. And it wasn't quite as dry and clinical as some of the other ones have been.

One point I liked was that it's OK for science to be hard. In fact, that's the point. What we need is more people willing to do stuff that is hard.

[West491]

Stargazer wrote

One point I liked was that it's OK for science to be hard. In fact, that's the point. What we need is more people willing to do stuff that is hard.

Yes.

The math and science we are learning today has been under construction (and still is) for a very long time. For one to think that he should be able to master the concepts with little effort is an extreme display of ignorance and arrogance. I'm ignoring the math and science geniuses in the population because they're so few in number.