Yeah, it's really the same or worse in the US. Worse because it's 2024, not 60 years ago, the same in that the conduct is free speech. No professor or student can hold a sign calling for the end to Israel's genocide without fear of repercussions to their current standing or their ability to find future employment. It's instilling a culture of fear and the response is the people not caring to put work to advance the environment that suppresses them.
No, lol. Outside of a handful of attention-seeking firms (Davis Polk, etc), the small minority of protestors will hold signs, march, go back to their social lives in college, graduate, and work for a middle-market firm (as they’ve always done and always will). And of course, what you’ve pointed here isn’t a government restriction on speech - social desirability bias is not imposed by the government. All of this is besides the point though - there are no government barriers on teaching or research for universities on any topic or on any viewpoint, and especially none for macroeconometric models (and to the extent there are restrictions - none come anywhere close to closing all universities and stopping all teaching and research for a decade)
Like I said, Western economists are either wrong, unable to agree with each other to form a useful consensus, or try to build their reputation with obvious things.
The IMF is as mainstream macro as you get and they’ve been consistently correct on gdp growth rates for decades. Media clickbait is clickbait (especially when it’s often given as hedged probabilistic language). There’s a clear difference in the quality of the source
They like to make the tests easier because the kids are doing too well, right? Set a record score LOL
No. They could make the tests easier (even assuming they’ve gotten easier) to make more people take the tests or make the tests be more palatable to a greater audience (esp. as a number of states have opted to give the test everyone graduating high school).
LOLOL You ain't blaming COVID on this one. California's system has been doing this completely independently and will extend to far beyond the time when COVID is over.
Yes. Universities mostly opted out of the SAT during COVID and then realized it wasn’t creating bad outcomes so they continued the policy of being test-optional. Your sources are directly on-point to that point.
The funny thing is that you think that a failure like this can be addressed, that it's defensible. And that is the American attitude towards failure. If this was China, I would be without words, only shame.
Can the failure be addressed? Yes. Educational outcomes have broadly improved over time. And if China is the proper comparison (it’s not for multiple reasons) - you’ll find similar unfavorable outcomes from adversely selected regions of China (
)
Ah I see, this is another example of great progress LOL.
Yes: decreases in residential segregation and more equal funding of school districts in the decades that have followed is indeed progress. As well as the growth of standardized testing requirements that have made educational outcomes actually measurable. Your question was whether such bad failures were happening in the 1960s and 1970s, and while not directly measurable, every indicia points to the answer being an unambigious
Well then Dr. Burge's poll is simply not meaningful enough. I posted meaningful data. Did you see or did you get dazed by all the charts?
It was one question, consistently asked for decades on the YRBS. My point was to show a time-series, not a moment in time.
No, that you're not familiar with it has nothing to do with randomness. They are well-structured with decisive results... which you're know if you could read charts.
No. Randomness in the risk factors being studied, the exact questions of what is being measured, among others. Tobacco use and alcohol use are clearly more severe in the U.S. but the point was it’s a random collection of risk factors that’s the topic of discussion.
It's a competition of how much of the global pie one can take and that has implications on the talent one can attract and employ. That talent creates technology, which is a race. The winner makes the loser obsolete.
Individuals can’t eat market shares and technological laggards still get spillovers from technological leaders. So it’s still, not a zero-sum game.
We did this before; you showed a study that included every person who mops the floors and cleans the test tubes as a STEM personel and the higher the standards got, the lower the US homegrown talent there was. And you said, "Awww, that's just a small percent." And I said, "Yeah, the small percent at the top are the main drivers of innovation; unfortunately for you, we don't count lab janitors as top STEM talent just to even things out.
Graduate degree holding STEM workers are supermajority US-born and this even ignores multiple reasons, unrelated to ability, for why foreign-born individuals are overrepresented in doctoral degree holders which include
1. Substantial immigrant under-matching in employment due to employer unfamiliarity, cultural unfamiliarity and language barriers
2. Various educational requirements for legally staying in U.S. that do not apply for citizens
3. Opportunity costs (lost wages, lost professional connections, etc) associated with pursuing graduate degrees that are substantially lower for immigrants
4. Having social/professional/family networks in home metro areas that would cease to have value if individuals moved to a different metropolitan area for graduate degrees
5. less of a need U.S.-born individuals to signal their capabilities with a degree since they have existing networks that can land them employment, without degrees.
The entire premise is somehow that for the ~2% US undergraduate degree earners that end up pursuing PhDs, the performance scale is so discontinuous that the the 95-97th percentile of individuals will not be able to pursue a PhD. It’s quite ridiculous; especially since there is no such discontinuity anywhere else - whether of US firms, metropolitan areas, or municipal governments.
There are a substantial number of U.S. software publishers and tech companies which are globally competitive and have their employees concentrated in geographies without many PhD holders - ex. Fiserv (Brookfield, WI); Citrix (Ft. Lauderdale, FL); Snowflake (Bozeman, MT); Micron Tech (Boise, ID); Cerner (Kansas City, MO); Global Payments (Atlanta, GA) -> all of which point to suggesting US STEM talent is broadly geographically distributed and abundant for producing competitive firms.
The managing part is true, but managers are not directly responsible; the scientists they manage are directly responsible. They are indirectly responsible.
Even assuming it’s true (it’s not) - US PhD earners in the 1990s were supermajority U.S.-born (esp. in mechanical engineering/chemical engineering/biology for the oil field, biotech, etc innovation) management itself is critical for firm success and/or failure (
).
Americans use thier post WWII finance system to put their useless management and business grads on top of high quality foreign scientists. Once the foreign scientists component is weakened, what does that result in?
Record H1-B and immigration backlogs and the largest number of STEM degrees ever issued (both numerically and as a percentage of the birth cohort)?
