US 21st in the world in science and math graduates

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

This has to do with something Victus and I were discussing some time back. I cannot seem to find that other thread.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ience-and-math

*thumbs through the report*

Your prior argument was that democracy in the US produces bad policies because the electorate has become less capable of critical thinking (in part because of a lack of education).

But the US appears to do by far the best job of discouraging the uneducated from voting:



How does that square with your theory? Based on that, wouldn't you conclude that other countries, with their electorate made up of a greater proportion of the uneducated, are more prone to generating irrational policies?

Eternal wrote

I like the quarter back analogy, I think that is pretty accurate. It is scary on what the future holds for the US, less innovation will potentially lead to less industry. Other countries closer to the top already have cheaper labour and more incentives for big corporate investment, now it appears they will have the bulk of the talent too.

Mathematically difficult, given smaller populations. Even with higher rates of graduation, it's basically impossible for any individual country to have 'the bulk' of 'talent'.

West491 wrote

All high school students should be required to pass basic calculus before receiving a diploma. None of this pre-calculus (which is basically algebra) crap. If we push our students more they will do better, like natural selection.

...or they flunk out.

As an aside, why would it matter whether one country produces more STEM graduates than another?

[Stargazer]

Victus, I've just gotten a phone call and have to go out for a couple hours, but I do have some comments about the above and will address them as soon as I can.

[West491]

Victus wrote

As an aside, why would it matter whether one country produces more STEM graduates than another?

I don't care about having more STEM graduates, I'm more concerned with our relatively low numbers compared to other countries.

Whenever I tell someone that I'm an engineering major, they look intimidated when really there is really nothing to be intimidated about. I think this fear comes from the fact that we don't teach mathematics and science to a high enough level to our students early on in order to get them to feel confident about their ability in said subjects.

[Victus]

West491 wrote

I don't care about having more STEM graduates, I'm more concerned with our relatively low numbers compared to other countries.

Why?

Also, the US doesn't have low numbers, it has low rates. Not the same thing.

[West491]

Victus wrote

Why?

In advancing a society, I want to argue that science and mathematics makes more of an impact than art, politics, culture, etc.

The last thing I want is for the US to fall behind.

[psychodiva]

too late

[Sol]

West491 wrote

In advancing a society, I want to argue that science and mathematics makes more of an impact than art, politics, culture, etc.

The last thing I want is for the US to fall behind.

More of an impact than Art or culture" ??????? (please apply an incredulous accent to that)

I need to hear more, I am intrigued...


* Note: I left out politics because, like economists, that's just self aggrandised, incipient egotistical fellatio.

[Victus]

West491 wrote

In advancing a society, I want to argue that science and mathematics makes more of an impact than art, politics, culture, etc.

Impact on what?

West wrote

The last thing I want is for the US to fall behind.

How would producing/having fewer STEM graduates represent 'falling behind'?

[Stargazer]

Sol wrote

More of an impact than Art or culture" ??????? (please apply an incredulous accent to that)

I need to hear more, I am intrigued...


* Note: I left out politics because, like economists, that's just self aggrandised, incipient egotistical fellatio.

There are many who think that, and believe we need to ramp up the science and math in schools and cut out art and music.

I think that without the creativity that art and music bring, science and math would by only so many dry, dusty equations. We need creativity to push the limits of scientific discovery.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

*thumbs through the report*

Your prior argument was that democracy in the US produces bad policies because the electorate has become less capable of critical thinking (in part because of a lack of education).

But the US appears to do by far the best job of discouraging the uneducated from voting:

Uneducated is not the same thing as lacking in critical thinking. Some very educated people are not capable of it.

Vic wrote

How does that square with your theory? Based on that, wouldn't you conclude that other countries, with their electorate made up of a greater proportion of the uneducated, are more prone to generating irrational policies?

Nope, see above.

Vic wrote

Mathematically difficult, given smaller populations. Even with higher rates of graduation, it's basically impossible for any individual country to have 'the bulk' of 'talent'.



...or they flunk out.

This does not make sense to me. Please reword.

Vic wrote

As an aside, why would it matter whether one country produces more STEM graduates than another?

Because their pool of potential scientists is reduced.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

Uneducated is not the same thing as lacking in critical thinking. Some very educated people are not capable of it.

True. But then statistics indicating a (relative) STEM shortfall shouldn't concern you. Either the education is relevant or its not - you can't have it both ways.

Star wrote

This does not make sense to me. Please reword.

Basic math.

The cited article looks at rates of graduates being produced, which generated a concern that some other nation(s) would have the 'bulk' of talent (i.e., numerical superiority of STEM graduates in absolute terms). But given the population size of the US, this is basically impossible. The US could have a substantially lower rate of STEM graduate production but still produce an order of magnitude greater number of STEM graduates than other countries, if only because of its size. As such, the initial concern is unwarranted.

Star wrote

Because their pool of potential scientists is reduced.

Doesn't logically follow from the relative rates of STEM graduates across countries, or the resulting rankins. That statistic doesn't contain information about the absolute number of graduates being produced. Just because South Korea is producing a bunch of STEM graduates doesn't mean that the US, or anyone else, is producing less, and as such concern about the absolute size of the pool of potential scientists is irrational, based on the information presented so far.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

True. But then statistics indicating a (relative) STEM shortfall shouldn't concern you. Either the education is relevant or its not - you can't have it both ways.

OK, we may have strayed a bit from the point here. The article at the beginning of the thread stated:

The article wrote

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development analyzed education rates in its member countries and found that the U.S. is below average in the relative number of 25- to 34-year-old workers who have a degree in so-called STEM fields such as science, engineering, computing and statistics.


That’s a potential problem because research has shown that innovation in any economy depends on how many workers have such degrees, said Ronald Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.

Which kinda sums up the point, there. As to the relevance to people not employing critical thinking, I'm just making the point that the ability to utilize critical thinking is not directly tied to education.

Plus, the bolded part......

Vic wrote

Basic math.

The cited article looks at rates of graduates being produced, which generated a concern that some other nation(s) would have the 'bulk' of talent (i.e., numerical superiority of STEM graduates in absolute terms). But given the population size of the US, this is basically impossible. The US could have a substantially lower rate of STEM graduate production but still produce an order of magnitude greater number of STEM graduates than other countries, if only because of its size. As such, the initial concern is unwarranted.



Doesn't logically follow from the relative rates of STEM graduates across countries, or the resulting rankins. That statistic doesn't contain information about the absolute number of graduates being produced. Just because South Korea is producing a bunch of STEM graduates doesn't mean that the US, or anyone else, is producing less, and as such concern about the absolute size of the pool of potential scientists is irrational, based on the information presented so far.

The chart in the article is referring to numbers, and we are putting out fewer STEM grads than 21 other countries, probably all of which are numerically smaller than the US. So that might be a concern.....

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

OK, we may have strayed a bit from the point here. The article at the beginning of the thread stated:

Which kinda sums up the point, there.

But it doesn't tell you whether there are 'enough' STEM graduates in the workforce one way or the other. If there were a market shortfall in STEM graduates, then they should have especially low unemployment for their level of education.

Star wrote

As to the relevance to people not employing critical thinking, I'm just making the point that the ability to utilize critical thinking is not directly tied to education.

Then why look to the educated for innovation, if the two aren't correlated? Or do you think critical thinking isn't necessary for innovation?

Star wrote

The chart in the article is referring to numbers, and we are putting out fewer STEM grads than 21 other countries, probably all of which are numerically smaller than the US. So that might be a concern.....

This is incorrect for two reasons:

1) The y-axis of the chart is for STEM-graduates in employment per 100,000 employees (among those aged 25-34 years). As such, it can't tell you whether you are producing fewer STEM graduates, only the relative rates at which you are doing so.

2) Even if the above weren't true, it's zooming in on a single demographic bracket while ignoring others, more favorable to the US. Since the US has had relatively high levels of university education for most of the last century, it's overall university-per employee rate would be much higher if considering the labor force as a whole, relative to, say, Korea, which has had a primarily recent uptick in STEM graduates. See Chart 3:




So, yes. Basic math appears to contradict you. But even if it didn't, I don't see any evidence that the market is especially in need of more STEM grads...



If it were, then unemployment for that level of education for STEMS would be specifically lower.

[ubs]

Does it matter if the market demand is high? 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. Since our performance was higher when money was spent at the local level, we should return to that model.

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.

[West491]

Sol wrote

More of an impact than Art or culture" ??????? (please apply an incredulous accent to that)

I need to hear more, I am intrigued...

In an attempt to answer your question, I have realized, and I must confess, that I got a little ahead of myself there. I shouldn't have said "more". That's simply not true.