patrick.net

New Renter says

* Hearing adults - especially parents - who went into STEM anyway curse their poor decision on a daily basis.

You're not talking about us?

New Renter says

* People who make understanding STEM material difficult (e.g. who don't want the competition)

Oh c'mon, that's why O-Chem is the premed weed out class and field theory, the EE weed out class.

New Renter says

* The disconnect between the "official" insatiable demand for STEM workers and the real world experience of those STEM workers.

Now, you're talking utopia.

Rin says

New Renter says

* Hearing adults - especially parents - who went into STEM anyway curse their poor decision on a daily basis.

You're not talking about us?

Actually I was thinking of my own experience. My Dad used to come home every night and complain bitterly about how much it sucked to be an engineer.

I thought he was exaggerating as he was prone to do...

..and here I am.

He wasn't exaggerating :(

Rin says

New Renter says

* People who make understanding STEM material difficult (e.g. who don't want the competition)

Oh c'mon, that's why O-Chem is the premed weed out class and field theory, the EE weed out class.

And as I discovered the primary reason for that is a horrible mismatch between the way students learn vs the way the material is taught.

Rin says

New Renter says

* The disconnect between the "official" insatiable demand for STEM workers and the real world experience of those STEM workers.

Now, you're talking utopia.

A duck's gotta dream.

New Renter says

Rin says

New Renter says

* People who make understanding STEM material difficult (e.g. who don't want the competition)

Oh c'mon, that's why O-Chem is the premed weed out class and field theory, the EE weed out class.

And as I discovered the primary reason for that is a horrible mismatch between the way students learn vs the way the material is taught.

That's another reason why I like these current online offerings. One can review materials, from many different instructors' perspectives.

The other thing is that one can start early, like during HS, instead of waiting till college, to start to delve into these topics.

New Renter says

With proper motivation I'd bet you could get most of them to at least give it their best effort.

What's the proper motivation?

Show STEM people, REAL STEM people (bench workers, not glorified MBAs or managers), being treated like celebrity sports stars.

STEM people...you must be referring to the other 15% that is capable.

Rin says

Yeah, but at least they know where they stand.

I'll tell you where they stand. 65% of America would receive an E by default. That's the problem. In subjects like these, to stand a chance in hell at learning, the student needs someone with them monitoring them, catching and correcting their mistakes. HTML falls way short at this part of the learning process.

STEM workers get the severe short end of the stick in terms of slice of the pie in these big pharma companies. I met a guy who had major involvement in 2 J&J drugs that are bringing in billions. He makes $110k a year. Meanwhile, the person in the marketing department connected to the drug takes home $500k a year. He made the friggin thing and some yahoo takes home 5 times his pay.

theoakman says

I'll tell you where they stand. 65% of America would receive an E by default.

theoakman says

Meanwhile, the person in the marketing department connected to the drug takes home $500k a year. He made the friggin thing and some yahoo takes home 5 times his pay.

This is why I'm not so worried about those who can't stomach the 'B-' in Introductory Physics at Harvard Extension but can pass some Real Estate appraisal exam.

Ultimately, the latter type ends up in some business function and then, makes money through sales and marketing.

Like you, I had once tutored Calculus back in college and I was worried about those, who couldn't get decent scores on their homeworks or exams.

And then, I'd met a graduate & told him about the ppl who couldn't hack Calculus for S&Es. This person had gotten a job at a bank (not exactly Wall St, but a commercial one) and he started laughing at me, saying that no one uses that stuff in the real world, unless they're actuaries or something.

Therefore, if 2/3s can't take that course then it just makes my life a whole lot easier.

New Renter says

Show STEM people, REAL STEM people (bench workers, not glorified MBAs or managers)

I hate to say it, but S&E school work, ever since the 80s, has been treated as a pathway towards business careers, for more students than you might think.

The best formalized example of that is Proctor & Gamble's recruiting system. Every year, they scour many Applied Science & Engineering (esp Chemical Engineering), depts around the country, looking for the best pre-business candidates they can find.

Normally, these are STEM students who can get B+'s and higher but also engage in extracurriculars like team sports, mentoring, and so forth. They tend to not grant 2nd interviews to the strict R&D types, as that's not their generally desired profile.

These well rounded persons are then invited to Cincinnati to work in product development, marketing & sales, and before you know it, you have a business person within 4-5 years.

Thus, like in the P&G example above, the idea is for an engineer to work 4-5 years in R&D, tech support, or what have you, and then, go back to school for an MBA, and then look for jobs as team or sales leads at GE, Allied Signal, etc.

Rin says

The best formalized example of that is Proctor & Gamble's recruiting system. Every year, they scour many Applied Science & Engineering (esp Chemical Engineering), depts around the country, looking for the best pre-business candidates they can find.

Normally, these are STEM students who can get B+'s and higher but also engage in extracurriculars like team sports, mentoring, and so forth. They tend to not grant 2nd interviews to the strict R&D types, as that's not their generally desired profile.

These well rounded persons are then invited to Cincinnati to work in product development, marketing & sales, and before you know it, you have a business person within 4-5 years.

FYI, back in those days, I'd spoken to the local P&G on-campus recruiter and I'd fit the *background profile* of a P&G type [ meaning that I'd played sports, did some mentoring/tutoring, got good grades, and was normal and not a complete engineering nerd ], however, I wasn't interested because I didn't see myself involved in product management for a line of fragrances.

Unlike a pre-MBAer, I was idealistic and wanted to start my career in core R&D.

Therefore, to save the guy some time, since he did put in some effort into getting to know me, I'd opted out of a 2nd interview in Cincinnati.

BTW, I don't regret not following up with P&G. If I'd wanted to start in non-R&D, I would have gone towards prop trading, patents, medical school, etc, starting out of school.

Yet, in the end, I am in finance today, because R&D was a joke of a career.

theoakman says

Rin says

Yeah, but at least they know where they stand.

I'll tell you where they stand. 65% of America would receive an E by default. That's the problem

I'd recently spoken to a HS teacher, who'd seen Boston area HS students attend the Harvard Extension school for courses like physics, biology, and so forth.

In his opinion, the class where kids underachieve is not in the quantitative areas but expository writing. He'd already known B students get C's in that class.

IHO, many HSs have poorly prepared their students to write a college level essay.

In a non-Calculus based science class, the poor students are to ones who don't allocate the time for proper study and review. If one does the work, a good grade will follow.

A bit dated but some nice rants on how engineering sucks as a career ...

http://tripleperiod.blogspot.com/2007/03/civil-engineering-sucks.html

@Rin, you have correctly identified a chronic problem with American scientific research as currently funded, so I will offer you a friendly amendment to your plan that may change your life. Instead of a means-tested welfare scheme, use a prize model that pays for innovations that reduce government spending. Talk with Pete Peterson for seed money; he co-founded The Blackstone Group and devotes his time now to the Peterson Foundation trying to balance the federal budget, and his biggest challenge is government medical spending. As long as government provides infinite "entitlement" spending to extend disease, the revenue recipients (e.g. PhRMA) are not interested in cures that might disrupt their revenue models. A program to endow prizes and grants for medical research innovations that reduce medical spending would fit all of the Peterson Foundation's criteria, "to find and implement sensible, long-term solutions that transcend age, party lines and ideological divides in order to achieve real results."

curious2 says

Instead of a means-tested welfare scheme, use a prize model that pays for innovations that reduce government spending

I believe that many of these initiatives tend to attract more the Elon Musk types, sure he's clever & smart, but he's really just doing what NASA dropped the ball on, thanks to their bloated bureaucracies. This directs money towards those who already have deep pockets, not those aspirants, who only have their minds to work with. Musk can hire STEM folks and when he gets stingy, like let's say another rocket crashes, he can easily move those careers to Asia.

And in an area like medicine, the fact of the matter is that we already have some amazing botanicals, like the active ingredient of Garlic, Allicin, which is being used to handle MRSA in a few of Britain's hospitals. Yet, I haven't heard a peep about it, from any stateside doctor around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3344325.stm

And there's also a cancer study where the enzymatic conversion was done efficaciously right on the tumor site ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14707270

Now, here's the problem ... Garlic is non-patentable and two, it costs less than $5 per pound.

Rin says

here's the problem ... Garlic is non-patentable and two, it costs less than $5 per pound.

That's why it needs a foundation to award grants and prizes in order to get it approved. Likewise an emergency medical team in TX produced preliminary data showing that combining alcohol & caffeine worked at least as effectively as tPA in stroke patients, but could not proceed because tPA is a revenue model for PhRMA and the AHA (even though not as effective medically as one might hope). Medicine is full of examples like that, where the more expensive and worse become a revenue model.

Elon Musk runs businesses that can make a profit. In medicine, the biggest profits are to be made from the existing model. You don't see Elon Musk going into that business, because he can't possibly compete with the subsidized profits of the current players.

So, medicine is the area where a foundation aimed at reducing spending could make a real difference, improving outcomes while reducing costs. If the foundation proves successful, it might then compete for government funding whether directly or indirectly (e.g. matching grants, accelerated FDA approval). It also broadens the appeal of scientific inquiry; remember, the Wright Brothers were high school dropouts working as bicycle mechanics, not credentialed scientists, but they competed for prizes in aviation. If you want really to liberate science from the ivory tower silos, then you need a prize/grant model that can reach beyond the established academy.

1. Someone who is used to $500k/yr funding can probably manage $1M/yr and put that to productive use. Someone who is used to only $50k/yr is more likely to blow the $1M/yr on hookers and blows instead! That's exactly what happens to people winning lotteries. It's better to think of funding as loans; the recipient has to be qualified from past track record before reasonable expectation can be made about how the recipient would be able to harness the fruits of other peoples' sweat and blood (that's what any transfer is). If you think welfare of a few hundred dollars a month is abused now, think about what kind of flood gate a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands a year would produce. People's morality does not necessarily improve with scientific knowledge acquisition.

2. Prize is a good idea. Another idea is better management models and personal responsibility under the correct set of incentives: say, for example, if everyone is entitled to up to $500k in a life-time for tax-payer paid medical expense, with any remaining fund in the account made available to the heir after a 50% tax . . . there would be much more responsibility on the part of the people/patients to take care of themselves and be judicious about what kind of medicine/procedure to take, instead of the current all-you-can-eat buffet model. That, more than any specific scientific/medical advance per se, would put a lid on the spiraling of public medical burden.

Rin says

The idea here is that we create a society of STEM folks

What would the point of this be?

Corporations want serfs not free-thinkers. The continuing existence and expansion of H1B should be proof of this. Instead of blue-skying yet another Big Program to add onto the pile, you should be fighting to shut that shit down.

Vicente says

Corporations want serfs not free-thinkers. The continuing existence and expansion of H1B should be proof of this. Instead of blue-skying yet another Big Program to add onto the pile, you should be fighting to shut that shit down.

We don't need that many free-thinkers. BTW, much of STEM does not require much creativity. They can be imported cheaply.

IMO we need a revival of art instead.

Vicente says

Corporations want serfs not free-thinkers. The continuing existence and expansion of H1B should be proof of this. Instead of blue-skying yet another Big Program to add onto the pile, you should be fighting to shut that shit down.

The horse is out of the barn and many corporations are global now. There is no way to stop the STEM outsourcing w/o making it into a National Security initiative, where sending IP out of the USA is treason, as C-executives don't want to land in federal prison.

Reality says

If you think welfare of a few hundred dollars a month is abused now, think about what kind of flood gate a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands a year would produce. People's morality does not necessarily improve with scientific knowledge acquisition.

I don't believe that a postdoc stipend, esp one earned through an examination process which at most, a small percentage of Americans can achieve, is the same as a welfare queen or a foster care swindle. I believe that what you're referencing is the Meth lab genius, like Samuel L Jackson's character in "Formula 51", where he makes a safe and disposable version of exstasy for the rave scenes. Here's the problem, a true criminal avoids being on the radar. This program is as radar-rich as it gets, as it'll be Dept of Defense financed.

I believe our Meth lab guy will essentially simply make his stash, sell it on the black market, and earn his $300K/yr w/o declaring anything to the IRS, and live an all cash lifestyle. He won't be studying for exams.

As for others, many ppl will leave for a career in finance, medicine, patent law, etc. That $32-$40K/yr is not big money.

Peter P says

We don't need that many free-thinkers. BTW, much of STEM does not require much creativity. They can be imported cheaply.

IMO we need a revival of art instead.

It's easier to create a science/engineering examination system than it is to evaluate works of art. In this case, Leonardo DaVinci will need to take some aerospace engineering exams, before he can indulge working on his Mona Lisa.

Rin says

The horse is out of the barn and many corporations are global now. There is no way to stop the STEM outsourcing w/o making it into a National Security initiative, where sending IP out of the USA is treason, as C-executives don't want to land in federal prison.

Then no one would want to start companies here.

Globalism is a good thing. We need to start seeing the world as our playground.

Outsourcing is not evil because Corporate America still has control.

Control is the key. It is like a safe word. Even though it appears the dominatrix is on top, you still have the final say.

Rin says

It's easier to create a science/engineering examination system than it is to evaluate works of art. In this case, Leonardo DaVinci will need to take some aerospace engineering exams, before he can indulge working on his Mona Lisa.

You have more faith in science and engineering than me. I doubt the efficacy of "objective" tests. We are all subjectivists and we do not need to pretend.

Peter P says

You have more faith in science and engineering than me. I doubt the efficacy of "objective" tests. We are all subjectivists and we do not need to pretend.

I saw a bunch of these folks in the 90s, who despite getting solid salaries programming Oracle and such, really didn't want to be into business systems programming. They did it because they didn't want to be a physics, chemistry, or math postdoc for life with no hope of a professorship or a meaningful industrial career.

Many, if financed to not have to worry about their future, would have stayed in the sciences. But sure, some will become surgeons but that's expected, as ppl's life situations change.

Peter P says

Globalism is a good thing. We need to start seeing the world as our playground

Since it's already happened, there's no need to pretend that we can change it. I don't like globalism but I've come to accept it.

Rin says

Many, if financed to not have to worry about their future, would have stayed in the sciences. But sure, some will becomes surgeons but that's expected, as ppl's life situations change.

True. I can see how science can be a passion. This is why I propose a return to the patronage system.

Rin says

Peter P says

Globalism is a good thing. We need to start seeing the world as our playground

Since it's already happened, there's no need to pretend that we can change it. I don't like globalism but I've come to accept it.

It really isn't that bad. When the playing field gets larger, the strong can only get stronger. Be strong.

Peter P says

Rin says

Peter P says

Globalism is a good thing. We need to start seeing the world as our playground

Since it's already happened, there's no need to pretend that we can change it. I don't like globalism but I've come to accept it.

It really isn't that bad. When the playing field gets larger, the strong can only get stronger. Be strong.

Doesn't matter for my career but if I were in some stateside industrial R&D group, I'd be ready to jump ship.

Rin says

Doesn't matter for my career but if I were in some stateside industrial R&D group, I'd be ready to jump ship.

One must balance passion against finance. Of course, having a windfall would change that. :-)

That said, there is no reason why science should be treated any different from art. There are poor artists. There are rich art whores. There are rich people who are artists. Similar for science.

Rin says

That $32-$40K/yr is not big money.

hmm, I thought you were thinking of giving people half a mil a year for running their own research labs. What possible attraction can $32-40k have? It's not even enough to pay for 1BR apt after paying their student loans. Post-docs put up the period of low pay in hopes of getting their own labs someday, complete with half a mil a year funding, hot secretary, wife and kids, and all that stuff. Not 32-40k/yr as the career end goal.

I always say that young people should consider working for a cruise line. No living expenses. Free travel. Easy hookups.

Reality says

What possible attraction can $32-40k have? It's not even enough to pay for 1BR apt after paying their student loans.

All the IP is theirs, not some Honeywell labs or Univ of CO Principal investigator.

And for a student, it's not bad money, since many share apartments or live with their parents and eat cafeteria food. Also, there's the army base in the Carolinas.

Eventually, with the help of having their own blog or a bloggers' community, they can now parlay their skills into either consulting (partially) or getting patents on their ideas.

Reality says

hot secretary, wife and kids, and all that stuff

This is why some ppl will take the exit strategy of medicine, finance, or patent law.

Reality says

Post-docs put up the period of low pay in hopes of getting their own labs someday, complete with half a mil a year funding, hot secretary, wife and kids, and all that stuff.

I wonder if they fantasize working for a Bond villian on a volcanic island completed with monorail. The hot secretary will be seduced away by a secret agent though.

Rin says

This is why some ppl will take the exit strategy of medicine, finance, or patent law.

Finance is the best field for hard science students. It is really no more toxic than the academia.

Rin says

I don't believe that a postdoc stipend, esp one earned through an examination process which at most, a small percentage of Americans can achieve, is the same as a welfare queen or a foster care swindle.

Rin, you seem there to have undercut your earlier explanation for why you switched from the first version of your plan to the second. (And, it took you an astonishingly long time even to recognize that you had changed your plans.) If you are at all serious about your "plan," what steps do you take to accomplish it? I can't help thinking that it serves some other purpose, psychologically, a half-baked dream to distract you, something to talk about rather than something to do actually. The irony is, if you did take the time to think it through, you would see that the current iteration is a Pruitt-Igoe style subsidy to the very ivory tower academies that you claim to deplore, as they would become the gatekeepers to your subsidy program that doesn't even require any useful work. (As a putative scientist, you must surely know the difference between effort and work.) At best, your base pay plus IP model would incent only the sort of jackpot stuff that the current SV dot-con culture drives already; more likely, it would produce new varieties of meth labs and similar underground revenue models. (For example, some of the 9/11 hijackers had university education funded by government.) All of the Pruitt Igoe tenants were supposedly monitored by their government subsidy programs, including domestic inspections, but the project failed catastrophically, with lethal consequences, amid conspicuous attention from everyone with even the slightest interest in the topic. It is a pity that rather than refine your plan you merely defend the latest arbitrary iteration, only ever changing it without realizing you've changed it until the fact is pointed out repeatedly.

Curious, did you and Reality both read the original header, the plan is the same, nothing has changed?

----"The idea is that by getting a particular score in a series of science & engineering exams, i.e. Organic Chemistry, Signals & Systems, Partial Differential Eqs, etc, one can get a stipend of $32K to $40K per year, to sit around and contemplate. The military will also provide some subsidized housing in a coastal area in the Carolinas, next to a base and thus, provide added security. Others, can either get their own place [ wherever they want ] or live with their parents."----

Where you're confused is that New Renter and I had a banter about being born a Rockefeller and financing a lab in Rio with Brazilian supermodels. I think you should be able to understand that New Renter and I have this jibjab all the time.

As for IP (and I mean potential IP, because the real goal here is intellectual freedom with IP as a side effect when lucky), I can tell you this ... I know someone who actually pulled off exactly that, without any Silicon Valley types, by doing water treatment experiments in his parent's basement in Massachusetts and was able to get his own patents. His partners, years later, were in Asia-Pacific. During this time, he had part-time jobs, as he was shunned by R&D labs. Today, he's retired.

Another guy did physics, also in his parent's home, but later, had to take a programming job at a bank because only one of his papers got anywhere. Thus, he gave it a try and passed on it later.

And I don't know why you keep bringing up Meth labs? A criminal does not want to be on the radar. It'll be very easy for the FBI to profile ppl in the program as the DoD will gather data on the participants. Did you not understand that with my Samuel Jackson's "Formula 51" illustration? A drug maker, earning $300K/yr, isn't studying for exams. He's living off the grid.

curious2 says

9/11 hijackers had university education funded

My program is for Americans, not Saudi nationals on a tourist or student visa. This is a misdirection.

Rin says

did you and Reality both read the original header, the plan is the same, nothing has changed?

I can only speak for myself, but yes I did read it, and yes you did change your plan, which you eventually acknowledged but have since forgotten. I read the rest of your comment as well, but your questions seem rhetorical. You should read more about policy and the importance of thinking through consequences, if you are serious. Otherwise it's a half-bakery with determination never to proceed, in which case TLDR.

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

curious2 says

All of the Pruitt Igoe tenants were supposedly monitored by their government subsidy programs, including domestic inspections, but the project failed catastrophically

And again, housing projects are for lower income ppl who have no qualifying skills. Many of them will not pass the exams and the DoD has something called the military police/MP, who're far better at law enforcement than some inner city precinct.

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

Rin says

housing projects are for lower income ppl....

You changed your plan to make that "for lower income ppl" also. Then you denied having changed your plan, because you hadn't even thought through your plan well enough to realize you'd changed it.

You don't need some big government program to restore science in the US. Tarrifs will do that.

Rin says

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

And he committed suicide before his prosecution so where's the problem. He was investigated and took an easier path out.