Comments on: Study: U.S. retains lead in science, tech

Leadership, however, increasingly relies on the brain power of foreign-born students and employees.

[Get_Bent]

He forgot one recommendation:

* Improve the crappy public education system in the U.S. to locally produce more science and engineering graduates.

[CougarAbogado]

To Get_Bent:

While you're correct that the article implies a need of having a larger number of science and engineering graduates, the article itself commits a common logical fallacy, namely that of percentage versus actual numbers.

The article states, "Europe and China are both graduating more university-educated engineers and scientists on a yearly basis than the U.S." Now, unless "more" in this case means a greater *percentage,* then this statement is virtually a truism. According to our pals at Wikipedia and about.com, the current US population is at 304,289,000 while those of Europe and China are respectively 712,000,000 and 1,321,851,888 (for China as of mid-2007).

Each of these has a population that is more than double that of the United States. Should it be shocking then, that they have a higher *count* of science/engineering graduates? As far as the actual percentages are concerned, I plead ignorance, but given the facts of the article, it's not really a reason to scream about any "crappy public education system in the U.S." Although perhaps your commentary is? (However, I wouldn't cast blame on the entire system for one man/woman's carping comment . . .)

[ted_t]

This study is typical smoke and mirrors to give the powers that be what they want. Please read the October 26, 2007 issue of Business Week to get at the truth: there are not enough science and technology jobs for all those studying these fields in school (See http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071025_827398.htm). In fact, if you were told that 1/3 of all those who get degrees in such pursuits do not find work, would you study it? Most would say no.
This is how it all plays out: The corporations say there is a shortage. People go to school thinking, ?If I get a degree in this, I will find work.? Then they study biology, chemistry, physics, computers, engineering or the like, thinking, ?Even if I get bad grades, there will be jobs.? Then, with about a 3.0 GPA, they struggle just to get employment. The companies love it because now they have a huge pool of candidates to get the flooded market price. And to pour more salt on the wound, they ask congress for more H1B visas to make up for the shortage, making it even more impossible to get into the field.
Here is the reality for those that study science and technology: The top 1/3 will have a living wage with only a few of that 1/3 doing better. Some may be cosmetic surgeons to the Hollywood elite but most will just make enough to live in a nice house and drive a nice car. These people know not to buck the system, because the gravy train will end. The median will have jobs in science, but because of the flooded market, they will be making in the $20K's with little room for advancement. A lustrous career as a truck driver would pay better, but they will stick it out because they are doing what they studied in school. The bottom 1/3 will ask, ?Do you want fries with that??.
One must ask the important questions here, like: ?Who published this study, and what do they have to gain?? The RAND Corporation is a special interest group for corporations that make money providing science and technology services; mostly spin-offs of the military-industrial complex from the LA area. By keeping prices low, these companies save their customers money and bring in more profit. A great formula for repeat business, but not a good prescription for a college freshman who does not know what to do with his or her life. For a real career, study the exploit pseudo sciences like management science, marketing science, finance or the like. You are likely to do far better in the current and future climate.

[D20080613]

I suggest that you look at H1B visa increases granted during the Clinton Administation? Unfortunately, the Bus administration hasn't done any better. If you increase the supply of engineers artificially with a fixed demand then the price i.e. income has to decrease. When our defense industry is outsourced will we also outsource the U.S. congress? Perhaps we already have. My answer is fire all the members of congress. All 535 members and start over.

[D20080613]

Science and Engineering students are determined by the economic laws of supply and demand. Our government through increased H1-B allotments has artificially increased the supply of engineers and with a constant demand this lowers the potential income of that profession. Additionally, the universities can charge more for foreign engineering and science students with the result being fewer American students accepted into science and engineering programs. When you add affirmative action programs that place quotas on the few classes that are left open, most Americans are at a disadvantage in their own universities. The increased supply of engineers coupled with the smaller opportunities and the resultant lower potential income as a career results in fewer Americans choosing a science or technical career path. In some organizations now, foreign engineering managers discriminate against Americans and prevent them from advancing. Why would any rational American choose such a difficult and unrewarding career path? If I had to do it all over again, I would not nor would I recommend it to any future student until our government policies are changed. Does it bother anyone beside me that foreign engineers are employed in our defense programs and weapon systems?