For The Love Of Port

Peter W. Meek wrote:I wouldn't quite agree with your first sentence. We are "importing" educated people (people with useful skills have a better chance of getting in) but raw intelligence is much the same everywhere. However, I do not think that science and math teachers (which is what we are short of, and getting shorter) are among the skills given preference.

I agree with your distinction between being educated and being intelligent. At the same time, don't you think that in some countries, the more intelligent are more likely to become highly educated? Those Olympic swimmers from China were identified at a young age with their big hands and feet. Might they be doing the same thing with respect to intelligence?

Peter W. Meek wrote: I wouldn't quite agree with your first sentence. We are "importing" educated people (people with useful skills have a better chance of getting in) but raw intelligence is much the same everywhere.

Less a disagreement than a tangential observation. I think that there is a statistical selection process involved in immigration, at least with reference to some groups of immigrants. Those who immigrate to the US are not a random sample of their respective countries, they are a selected sample. In some cases the sample selection filter is having attended the elite universities of their respective country. It is not simply that they are educated. They are not a random sampling of educated people any more than the freshman class of Harvard is a random selection of freshman college students. If the average IQ of country X is 100, I would not expect that the average IQ of immigrants to the United States from country X to also be 100 but distinctly higher. If the average IQ of college graduates in country X is 115, I would not expect that the average IQ of college graduate immigrants from country X to also be 115 but distinctly higher. In general I think this idea of selective processes is pretty interesting and comes into play in a lot of different contexts in life.

I've been thinking about this all day.

The people who emigrate/immigrate are risk-takers. Not necessarily the most intelligent or educated, but willing to throw everything away and begin a new life in a new country. They really do add vitality to our (for of those of us who see USA as "our") country, but they don't address the fundamental problem: Where are we going to get the science and math teachers that will send out the next generation of technically trained innovators?

Peter W. Meek wrote:Where are we going to get the science and math teachers that will send out the next generation of technically trained innovators?

I don't have an answer to that question. But I do have some 'discouraging words' to share. Rightly or wrongly, people make career choices and pursue paths of education based on calculation of self-interest. What kind of money is this path going to generate? Is this a good career path? If I go to college to study X, will I in turn be able to send my 2 children through college based on the income stream I can generate in my career?

If you are going to pursue the difficult and challenging educational path of science or math in college, why would you go into teaching, a career path that pays relatively poorly. Why not instead go into engineering or become a patent attorney?

With reference to those innovators that the science and math teachers would prepare. I would apply the same analysis. Is engineering a promising career field? I was an engineer for some 14 years. Ultimately I was bounced out -- of a start-up company that went totally defunct -- never to return to engineering. I had made too much money to bring in at a lower pay level, even if I was willing to accept a lower salary. The fear -- entirely well founded -- was that if I was hired at a lower wage I would jump ship as soon as a substantially higher salary opportunity presented itself. I have observed a very similar path for many engineers. Engineering is relatively good for the first five years of one's career. After that it gets kind of dodgy. You can suggest, well, you need to transition into management. Sure, but then maybe the best thing to do is get an engineering degree, go directly on to an MBA, and go into management along that path.

Engineering has a number of disadvantages. One disadvantage is the boom-bust cycle. Companies hire and grow as an industry sector prospers. Companies lay off and shrink as the industry sector declines. Another disadvantage is off-shoring of engineering work to India and China. Again, I know a lot of engineers who have gone through this and don't like this inherent instability very much.

If I had a son -- and I do -- I would not advise him to go into engineering as I did -- I so advised him. He has earned a degree in science, but my further advise is to work in patent law -- as I do. This is quite stable and pays considerably better than engineering ever paid me. The innovators in science and engineering typically have Masters Degrees or more frequently Ph'Ds. I can see the value of a BS in science or engineering -- it is almost like the new general liberal arts degree that used to be a carte d'entree into a solid corporate career in the old days . . . but is the further investment in education more prudently committed to more science/engineering or to law school or business school? Does a Ph'D provide more bang for the buck/time committment or does a JD or an MBA?

It used to be that engineering was both a stable career and well paying career. I think those days are over. This does not attract as many of the best and brightest as formerly. I don't think that is going to change in the US unless at some future point careers in science and engineering are both better rewarded and more stable. Just my opinion.

Something in me says the tenor of this thread went in a way different direction from what the forum owner had started and intended. Personally, I thought the pictures from Mars were a thrilling sight. I don't think it's a coincidence this major achievement occured around the same time as the passing of Neil Armstrong. It makes one wonder what the next 20 or 40 years in space exploration have in store.