Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Study Time
Here is a chart, from Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks' study “The Falling Time Cost of College: Evidence from Half a Century of Time Use Data.”, that helps explain why America is falling behind:
The typical engineering major today spends only 18.5 hours per week studying. The typical social sciences major spends about 14.6 hours, down by almost half from 1960. This is, no doubt, part of the transformation of undergraduate college from a serious academic experience to a very, very expensive party. And no doubt this is part of the reason why there is only one US college in the top ten in yesterday's post about the Collegiate Computing Contest.
Recommended: Russia's Strategy
Geroge Freidman of STRAFOR has a good article on Russia's Strategy. It is well worth reading.
Key to Russia's strategy, Freidman argues, is keeping the USA distracted by Middle East wars and involvements while Russia continues to recover its power and influence. American politicians, naive as they appear to be, seem to be helping this effort no end.
Monday, April 23, 2012
International Collegiate Programming Contest
The 2012 Association for Computing Machinery International Collegiate Programming Contest is just about to take place (May 14-18 in Warsaw, Poland). Here are last year's top 10 winners:
1 Zhejiang University (China)
2 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (USA)
3 Tsinghua University (China)
4 St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
5 Nizhny Novgorod State University (Russia)
6 Saratov State University (Russia)
7 Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany)
8 Donetsk National University (Ukraine)
9 Jagiellonian University in Krakow (Poland)
10 Moscow State University (Russia)
Only one American university in the top 10, and only 2 in the top 25! If that doesn't scare the hell out of us in the USA, we just don't understand what is happening........
1 Zhejiang University (China)
2 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (USA)
3 Tsinghua University (China)
4 St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
5 Nizhny Novgorod State University (Russia)
6 Saratov State University (Russia)
7 Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany)
8 Donetsk National University (Ukraine)
9 Jagiellonian University in Krakow (Poland)
10 Moscow State University (Russia)
Only one American university in the top 10, and only 2 in the top 25! If that doesn't scare the hell out of us in the USA, we just don't understand what is happening........
Recommended: Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent
Edward Luce has just written a new book entitled Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent that deals with just the issues discussed in the preceding post. It apparently takes it's (very apt) title from a quotation from Sir Ernest Rutherford: "Gentlemen, we have run out of money. It is time to start thinking."
I haven't read it yet (it is on order at our local library), but Luce was interviewed this past Sunday of Fareed Zakaria's GPS (Global Public Square, Sundays on CNN) program, and he made a lot of sense. Another interview with him, from PBS's The News Hour, can be seen here.
Transformation
It has been clear for years now that the spread of the internet has made as profound a change in current society as the printing press did in its day. What has not been so clear until recently is that even more profound and far-reaching changes are taking place in society as a whole, driven in part by the unparalleled connectivity the internet and mobile phones provide, but in part by other forces in society.
This week’s Economist calls it the “third industrial revolution”, and discusses at length the substantial changes in the workplace that explain, in part, why many jobs are not coming back as this recession finishes its cycle. Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum discuss much the same thing in their new book That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back (a book I am reading, but have not yet posted to this blog or my associated book list).
I recommend this week’s Economist articles, and Friedman and Mandelbaum’s book to those who would like to pursue this point of view in more detail. My topic in this post is to suggest that the profound shifts in society, and particularly in the workplace, coupled with the nation’s demographics (the “old people” bulge and the associated fiscal problems with Medicare and Social Security) , require a fundamental rethinking of both the American political process, and the American educational system.
The problem with major transformations in a society is that people are slow to recognize them and resistant to changing their ways to adapt. It has been clear for decades now that our political process was in trouble, spending ever larger amounts of (borrowed) money on increasingly ineffective programs. And it has been clear for almost as long that American education, hobbled by teacher’s unions and academic orthodoxy and incompetent local school boards, is in equal trouble. Yet to this day we persist in throwing yet more money at the same problems with the same ineffective results. I am remained again of Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
These are, in the most literal sense, issues of national security. If our government cannot find a way to avert the looming fiscal crisis from our growing national debt and the unsustainable unfunded future liabilities of our current entitlement programs (not even mentioning the equally unsustainable unfunded pension liabilities of many states), America will be in serious trouble. And equally, if we cannot find a way to make the education of our younger generations more effective, and better adapted to the technological work world they will enter, we will shortly cease to be a world leader, ceding that position most likely to one of the Asian nations whose children are better educated.
The putative presidential nominees of both parties are still talking about and thinking in terms of the old order, and still promising to return us to the prosperity of the old days, mostly by throwing more (borrowed) government money at the problems. This may be sound politics in an election year, but it is a disastrous national policy in this period of transformation.
As is always true in any profound transformation in society, it is not at all clear how we should adapt. It will no doubt take decades of trial and error (and more errors than successes) to figure out how best to adapt our political and educational systems to the new order. I would support any political figure, and any educational system, that would at least recognize the problem and begin to try to adapt to it, even if clumsily at first.
This week’s Economist calls it the “third industrial revolution”, and discusses at length the substantial changes in the workplace that explain, in part, why many jobs are not coming back as this recession finishes its cycle. Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum discuss much the same thing in their new book That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back (a book I am reading, but have not yet posted to this blog or my associated book list).
I recommend this week’s Economist articles, and Friedman and Mandelbaum’s book to those who would like to pursue this point of view in more detail. My topic in this post is to suggest that the profound shifts in society, and particularly in the workplace, coupled with the nation’s demographics (the “old people” bulge and the associated fiscal problems with Medicare and Social Security) , require a fundamental rethinking of both the American political process, and the American educational system.
The problem with major transformations in a society is that people are slow to recognize them and resistant to changing their ways to adapt. It has been clear for decades now that our political process was in trouble, spending ever larger amounts of (borrowed) money on increasingly ineffective programs. And it has been clear for almost as long that American education, hobbled by teacher’s unions and academic orthodoxy and incompetent local school boards, is in equal trouble. Yet to this day we persist in throwing yet more money at the same problems with the same ineffective results. I am remained again of Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
These are, in the most literal sense, issues of national security. If our government cannot find a way to avert the looming fiscal crisis from our growing national debt and the unsustainable unfunded future liabilities of our current entitlement programs (not even mentioning the equally unsustainable unfunded pension liabilities of many states), America will be in serious trouble. And equally, if we cannot find a way to make the education of our younger generations more effective, and better adapted to the technological work world they will enter, we will shortly cease to be a world leader, ceding that position most likely to one of the Asian nations whose children are better educated.
The putative presidential nominees of both parties are still talking about and thinking in terms of the old order, and still promising to return us to the prosperity of the old days, mostly by throwing more (borrowed) government money at the problems. This may be sound politics in an election year, but it is a disastrous national policy in this period of transformation.
As is always true in any profound transformation in society, it is not at all clear how we should adapt. It will no doubt take decades of trial and error (and more errors than successes) to figure out how best to adapt our political and educational systems to the new order. I would support any political figure, and any educational system, that would at least recognize the problem and begin to try to adapt to it, even if clumsily at first.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Recommended: Strangers in a Strange Land
Victor Davis Hanson has written another of his insightful pieces: Stranger in a Strange Land, in which he ponders the daily rewriting of history going on in our political scene, much like the rewriting of history that used to go on in the old Soviet Union.
I too have wondered why things that were terrible, unconstitutional abuses (by President Bush) in Obama's campaign four years ago (like water boarding torture and Guantanamo prison in Cuba and executing people without trial with Predator drone missiles) are now not only acceptable, but even necessary and certainly legal and constitutional according to the same President Obama. I too wonder why the Supreme Court's rulings are wise and proper when they support Obama's positions, but capricious and "activist" when they threaten to oppose him. Foolish man that I am, I always thought the Supreme Court's job was in fact to be an independent check on executive and Congressional overreach.
Of course, politicians always try to spin reality in their favor. I don't blame them; it's the nature of the job. I blame us, the voting public, if we are stupid or gullible enough to not see through it.
I too have wondered why things that were terrible, unconstitutional abuses (by President Bush) in Obama's campaign four years ago (like water boarding torture and Guantanamo prison in Cuba and executing people without trial with Predator drone missiles) are now not only acceptable, but even necessary and certainly legal and constitutional according to the same President Obama. I too wonder why the Supreme Court's rulings are wise and proper when they support Obama's positions, but capricious and "activist" when they threaten to oppose him. Foolish man that I am, I always thought the Supreme Court's job was in fact to be an independent check on executive and Congressional overreach.
Of course, politicians always try to spin reality in their favor. I don't blame them; it's the nature of the job. I blame us, the voting public, if we are stupid or gullible enough to not see through it.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Are “conservative Republicans” really either conservative or Republican, or even Christian?
It occurs to me, after a thoughtful exchange with one of my daughters, that there is a real question whether the current conservative Republican party is really conservative. They say all the right things, but they don’t do as they say.
Republicans say they want to reduce the size of the federal government, but the last time they held the reins of government, under President George W. Bush, they actually increased federal employment slightly (by about 35,000), and they certainly didn’t reduce it.
Republicans say they want to cut the federal budget deficit and reduce the national debt, but the last time they held the reins of government, under President George W. Bush, they actually increased the national debt $4.899 trillion over his eight years in office. True, Obama has done worse in his first three years in office, but the Republicans didn’t do anything to help the problem last time they were in power.
Republicans say they want the federal government to butt out of our private lives, but they eagerly support federal laws to limit abortions, prohibit gay marriage, and allow all sorts of invasions of privacy under the “Patriot Act” -- which hardly looks like the federal government “butting out” of our private lives.
It seems to me that what the Republican party has really become is a fundamentalist Christian religious party. The success of Santorum’s candidacy, with his wildly right-wing fundamentalist Christian views, supports that. And even the “Christian” part is questionable, because I don’t think Jesus would be very happy with the stiff-necked intolerance displayed these days – these “Christians” look a lot more like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, intolerant, rigid, and absolutely sure they are right and everyone else is wrong.
I’m not at all happy with Obama and his free-spending “progressives”, but I am much less happy with letting a fundamentalist religious party run the American government. It sure would be nice if some real Republicans and real conservatives showed up again on the political scene.
Republicans say they want to reduce the size of the federal government, but the last time they held the reins of government, under President George W. Bush, they actually increased federal employment slightly (by about 35,000), and they certainly didn’t reduce it.
Republicans say they want to cut the federal budget deficit and reduce the national debt, but the last time they held the reins of government, under President George W. Bush, they actually increased the national debt $4.899 trillion over his eight years in office. True, Obama has done worse in his first three years in office, but the Republicans didn’t do anything to help the problem last time they were in power.
Republicans say they want the federal government to butt out of our private lives, but they eagerly support federal laws to limit abortions, prohibit gay marriage, and allow all sorts of invasions of privacy under the “Patriot Act” -- which hardly looks like the federal government “butting out” of our private lives.
It seems to me that what the Republican party has really become is a fundamentalist Christian religious party. The success of Santorum’s candidacy, with his wildly right-wing fundamentalist Christian views, supports that. And even the “Christian” part is questionable, because I don’t think Jesus would be very happy with the stiff-necked intolerance displayed these days – these “Christians” look a lot more like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, intolerant, rigid, and absolutely sure they are right and everyone else is wrong.
I’m not at all happy with Obama and his free-spending “progressives”, but I am much less happy with letting a fundamentalist religious party run the American government. It sure would be nice if some real Republicans and real conservatives showed up again on the political scene.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The permanent problem
Much has been made in this election of the split between the rich and the rest of us - the 1% vs the 99%. And President Obama at least keeps harping on how his liberal policies are going to change this. But I wonder if it can be changed, whatever a politician promises.
It is true that a relative handful of overpaid CEOs and hedge fund managers seem to have figured out how to game the system to their advantage, but they really only represent a small fraction of the much-demonized 1%. Most of that upper 1% (really more like the upper 5%) are paid much more than the national average because they are smart, well-educated, and working in the new "knowledge industry" that is driving much of the world economy, and especially the America economy, these days. Murray's book Coming Apart (cited in this blog a few days ago) addresses just this issue.
It is a fact that people in the "knowledge industry" get paid much more on average than those in most other industries. Nor is this likely to change any time soon, since in fact they produce more "value" (products/services people are willing to pay good money for) per labor hour than workers in most other industries. It is simple economics.
It is also a fact that people have to be smarter and more educated than average to work in these new "knowledge industry" fields. They need to be smart enough to get through at least undergraduate college, which implies a minimum IQ of about 120, about 1 1/3 standard deviations above the average. That limits the available pool of talent to only about 1 person in 10, and no government program, however ambitious and well funded, is going to change that. (Dumbing down college, as some have tried to do, obviously doesn't solve the problem).
Given these two facts, I don't see how any program or government policy, however clever and well-intentioned, is going to appreciably change the situation. It may make good political rhetoric to promise to level the "playing field", but in fact there is no way to level the playing field - the smarter elite are going to continue to make more than the rest of the nation, a good bit more. It is neither fair nor unfair - it just is.
This gets us back once again to the question I have pondered in other posts - in a highly advanced technological society, where even the proverbial ditch digger needs to be relatively highly skilled and educated, what does the social system do with those who are simply not capable of functioning at a high mental or technological level? And especially what does the system do if that group constitutes the majority of the nation?
It is true that a relative handful of overpaid CEOs and hedge fund managers seem to have figured out how to game the system to their advantage, but they really only represent a small fraction of the much-demonized 1%. Most of that upper 1% (really more like the upper 5%) are paid much more than the national average because they are smart, well-educated, and working in the new "knowledge industry" that is driving much of the world economy, and especially the America economy, these days. Murray's book Coming Apart (cited in this blog a few days ago) addresses just this issue.
It is a fact that people in the "knowledge industry" get paid much more on average than those in most other industries. Nor is this likely to change any time soon, since in fact they produce more "value" (products/services people are willing to pay good money for) per labor hour than workers in most other industries. It is simple economics.
It is also a fact that people have to be smarter and more educated than average to work in these new "knowledge industry" fields. They need to be smart enough to get through at least undergraduate college, which implies a minimum IQ of about 120, about 1 1/3 standard deviations above the average. That limits the available pool of talent to only about 1 person in 10, and no government program, however ambitious and well funded, is going to change that. (Dumbing down college, as some have tried to do, obviously doesn't solve the problem).
Given these two facts, I don't see how any program or government policy, however clever and well-intentioned, is going to appreciably change the situation. It may make good political rhetoric to promise to level the "playing field", but in fact there is no way to level the playing field - the smarter elite are going to continue to make more than the rest of the nation, a good bit more. It is neither fair nor unfair - it just is.
This gets us back once again to the question I have pondered in other posts - in a highly advanced technological society, where even the proverbial ditch digger needs to be relatively highly skilled and educated, what does the social system do with those who are simply not capable of functioning at a high mental or technological level? And especially what does the system do if that group constitutes the majority of the nation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
