It's the 2nd and the 3rd links.
They all don't work just like your logic. But we don't need these anymore. You screwed yourself with your 2 homemade tables. We'll go on those.
No, lol. This only is logical (even on the R&D side of things) if you think that the thesis part of the PhD is so uniquely transformative that it can't be replicated through industry experience (even though they are broadly the same thing).
LOL yes, I think that. Because industry experience in the lab at an assistant level is repeating that 1 procedure you do over and over again and turn in the results to your superiors for analysis while a PhD requires you research and design all your own experiments to answer a large question. You didn't know that?
Even in an extremely positively selected cohort, you had 1/4th of the cohort have non-doctorates, which goes to show that the "only PhDs matter" position doesn't hold water
What cohort? Just being there doesn't mean they matter. There's always more work grunts than brains.
If people have uniquely high levels of STEM talent that aren't being recognized by their employer, being a founder would indeed be a way to make substantially more money.
Reread sentence. Part A and B are not logically connected.
It's not happening so the current market is equilibrating quite well.
So obviously C, the conclusion, is meaningless.
Up to the PhD level in computing. You needed to find extremely thin slices of the workforce that are <100K in size to prove your point.
<100K is a thin slice? LOL The real people who matter to a country's national STEM power are probably in the hundreds at most; the rest do coding for these people.
It doesn't. What it shows (particularly if you assume that US Asians are extremely deep with human capital and thus more likely to be PhD seeking in the first place) is that PhD degree seeking is not a test of innate human capital (since they are represented per their cohort size in the US), it's primarily an immigration decision by foreigners seeking entry into the US; a decision that is irrelevant to US citizens (who could be earning immediately money out of undergrad)
1. We are in agreement now that the US STEM force is substantially, and in some cases, in majority Asian. You've lost that point already which you previously claimed as not true.
2. The percentage of USC/LPR Asian was taken as a percentage of the total, which is heavily immigrant Asian. If you were to compare that with the Asian population of the US (7%), that number would somtimes double or triple because they would need to be compared to a total that does not include the temp visa population.
3. It also shows that American culture dumbs down. This can be corroborated with the data that America produces far less STEM students per capita compared to China.
US high schools and school districts that have never had a program aren't going to have students participate will shockingly, not be represented. The only school districts/schools that have them are heavily Asian to begin with since the various academic olympiads are a Tiger Mom insecurity fest.
They don't have these programs because they're too stupid to have them. It's a loop.
It broadly doesn't. Undocumented immigrants generally file with ITINs
Undocumented immigrants file their illegal earnings? What?
which were also analyzed and excluding them doesn't really change the study findings since undocumented Asians are a small cohort (~17%) of foreign born asians (
)
That group is what shows the highest mobility. The others groups have already moved about as high as they can go based only on STEM without supporting politics.
and for US-born Asians (who by definition are legal), they have the same generational mobility as whites.
OK, I said it before and it's come true. Third time: STEM and management aren't the same even if they have similar mobility by pay.
If Asians had uniquely high levels of STEM talent, they would have higher levels of generational mobility than what is observed since generic engineering positions are still in the 70th percentile of income earners.
Total STEM earning is going up, regardless of whether you use the % of the birth cohort or aggregate counts; the idea that there's no innate human capital level in the United States flies in the face of every time series.
70% is not that high; it's reached by Asians in most cases. But law, investment, sales, etc... can skew the number much higher than any STEM career.
If you add a quick adjustment (~30% of international graduate students are from China, Table S2-14) to the international student shares, you quickly get super minority status for applicants from China + USC/LPR Asians. The idea that US technological development is totally dependent on international students is just wholly unsupported.
| 2017 total doctorates | International | US citizen/LPR Asian | % temp visa | 30% of temp visa | % Asian | total (30% temp visas, + % Asian) |
| Aerospace Eng. | 342 | 128 | 26 | 37% | 11% | 8% | 19% |
| Chemical Eng. | 1169 | 606 | 86 | 52% | 16% | 7% | 23% |
| Civil Eng. | 1246 | 776 | 51 | 62% | 19% | 4% | 23% |
| Electrical Eng. | 2669 | 1923 | 163 | 72% | 22% | 6% | 28% |
| Industrial Eng. | 380 | 238 | 21 | 63% | 19% | 6% | 24% |
| Materials Eng. | 877 | 440 | 57 | 50% | 15% | 6% | 22% |
| Mechanical Eng. | 1498 | 844 | 78 | 56% | 17% | 5% | 22% |
| Computer Sciences | 1934 | 1089 | 100 | 56% | 17% | 5% | 22% |
| Mathematics | 1925 | 943 | 127 | 49% | 15% | 7% | 21% |
| 12040 | 6987 | 709 | | | | |
Oh you had to edit the last table cus you realized that was ugly? LOL So now we have:
1. American STEM is heavily dependent, oftentimes over 50% on temp visa and Asians.
2. Asians are heavily overrepresented in STEM doctorates compared to their general population, which supports natural affinity to STEM.
3. Chinese people represent a fourth to a fifth of the STEM doctorate force in the US, and that's including immigrants. Compared to non-immigrants, that's gonna be about 50%.
Yo, make another chart to slap yourself again. Come on!
