China To Overtake US In Science In Two Years 362
An anonymous reader writes "China is set to overtake America in scientific output as soon as 2013 — far earlier than expected. Chinese research spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006. 'I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent,' said Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith. However, the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean an increase in quality."
What, people measure scientific output? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?
Re:What, people measure scientific output? (Score:4, Funny)
"China is set to overtake America in scientific output as soon as 2013" sounds like something that would bubble up in a Civ 4 or 5 game.
Re: (Score:3)
It's usually measured by Libraries of Congress of peer-review journals or metric fucktonnes of Graduate student brains, but at the rate we're going, we'll be using the Bricks shit per American.
Re: (Score:2)
But China does have cooler model trains than we do [bbc.co.uk]
Re:What, people measure scientific output? (Score:4, Informative)
It's measured in the ability to RTFM, which Chinese scientists seems to excel at:
"The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier."
Re:What, people measure scientific output? (Score:5, Interesting)
China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.
Re:What, people measure scientific output? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's just sour grapes. Just because the Chinese tried to fraudulantly deny Perelman his claim to solving one of the world's toughest maths problems (amongst other academic misdeeds)! Besides, academic fraud is widespread. Any South Korean cloning experts come to mind? Then there's the US medical researchers who won't publish papers that would make their sponsors look bad. The truth is, academia needs to be properly and heavily funded by Governments and those trusts that can demonstrate neutrality, not by private organizations, and there really should be a heavy crackdown on corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
And so your conclusion is that they don't publish any good research and that U.S. scientists never commit fraud (or publish bullshit research)?
Re: (Score:2)
China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.
And so your conclusion is that they don't publish any good research and that U.S. scientists never commit fraud (or publish bullshit research)?
No. That isn't my conclusion. I normally wouldn't answer a question this ridiculous, but I have a feeling you need extremely clearly stated words else your imagination starts pretending.
Re: (Score:2)
It's measured in the ability to RTFM, which Chinese scientists seems to excel at:
"The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier."
Given some of the crap [elsevier.com] that Elsevier publishes, I'd wait for independent confirmation.
Re:What, people measure scientific output? (Score:5, Funny)
Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?
In two turns their SuperComputer will be completed. Since they have a higher population, they'll get more research points. But if we build a Space Station, we can overtake them in 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is we've allocated too many citizens to entertainment and not enough to science and production. Also, our method of government means the citizens are restless with war weariness.
The domestic advisor recommends you build a temple to keep the populace happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?
FTA:
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
Maybe the website can list "the patience to read TFA before asking redundant questions" as one of the metrics?
Also duly noted that the last one says China still lags behind in number of citations normalized to investment/publications, but still clearly defines a metric.
Re: (Score:3)
Number of Chinese scientists? We still have a lot here.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue: there isn't.
After all what is the value of a particular bit of research? You would say the invention of the transistor was very valuable, but what about the enormous amount of research that went on to get to this point? The discovery of semiconductors, for example. The manufacturing techniques to actually make those parts. A bit of research never comes on its own, and it's anyway hard to put a value on it.
The information coming out of the LHC for example one person would consider fantastic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's some function of the number of papers published and the number of times each paper is cited. (It is assumed that the more a paper is cited, the higher the quality of the paper. In a number of countries, Universities are funded according to this measure, so underfunded institutions tend to be penalized for outputing less and rich, and rich, popular institutions tend to get extra funding as they tend to publish more, get into glossier journals, and get their stuff noticed better.)
It's not a particularly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, the Google algorithm. For every published paper you compute its rank based on the number of other published papers referencing it. Then you make a sum of all the ranks.
Re: (Score:2)
-nod- We could get back on track in no time by just building a library in every town in America.
Re: (Score:2)
if there isn't a library in every town in America, i think that should be done regardless.
book stores don't count.
Re:Civ4 (Score:5, Insightful)
America already has the Library of Congress, which increases scientific output by 50% in all cities. There are just too many entertainers, some of which should be converted to scientists. That should be pretty obvious to most Civ players, I hope.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is any truth to this story [cnngo.com] then they are headed down the same hill as the US, just a few years behind.
Chinese universities also have more cheating (Score:3)
Chinese universities also have more cheating then us ones.
Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating (Score:4, Interesting)
You have any numbers supporting that assertion? Specifically, is it true when weighted by research impact?
Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating.
And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out - so there is a very strong incentive for copying work from others and add maybe a bit of your own just to push out yet another paper. It's normal for a PhD at a Chinese university to have a dozen or two papers on his name when graduating; against just a few for PhDs at European or American universities.
Cheating is considered a large problem within universities in China - not only universities but also other parts of the whole education system. I've read about doctors working in hospitals with bought certificates. Recently it was pilots flying commercial Chinese airliners without having actually passed the exams. It's a real problem - and arguably part of the problem is the lack of checks and balances. These pilot licenses should have been verified with the school that purportedly issued them, for example, yet airliners were too busy expanding that they didn't do this. I wouldn't be surprised if more bribes were involved in not having those licenses checked.
Quality of Chinese research in general is still low. They will surely pick up to the game sooner or later, and there are definitely very good Chinese researchers around. Just have a look at the top universities in the US: many of their top researchers nowadays are Chinese nationals. Oh and that they are working in the US and not in their home country is not just because.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is cheating going on, of course there is. Problem is, cheating is going on elsewhere too, and with only anecdotal evidence it's hard to determine to what degree there really is more cheating in China than in, say, the US or Europe, and to what degree it is a matter of perception.
"And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out [...]"
Yep. But so are researchers everywhere. Your publication count - how many papers, with what impact factor - lar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's anything like my experience in Taiwan then I'm not surprised at all. I went to driving school in Taiwan to get my local license. The school consisted of 5 days a week for 6 weeks we went to school and had a "driving instructor" tell us how to take the test on the course that they have at their school. Their school is also certified to have the test taken there. There are little rocks and other curiously placed items, plus extra large side mirrors and triangular mud flaps, to help aid you along.
Definition of a grad student... (Score:5, Funny)
...a machine for turning ramen into "scientific output".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whoosh...
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
When I hear things like Texas wants to slash 10 billion dollars from the public education budget. Or did that not get through?
Re: (Score:2)
So you have some data correlating the amount of money spent to kids learning proper English, math, and science? I would be fascinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be my observation as well. I would note that the number of NEA agitators and highly-paid official seems to have grown astronomically. So I really can't see why the money hasn't gotten any better results - quite puzzling.
Re: (Score:2)
this is the thing that bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
'I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent,' said Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith
Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.
The only way you could possibly twist this into a bad thing is if you think China is going to become a military power and try to take over the world. But it's a LONG logical stretch between "greater scientific spending" and "army capable of conquering the rest of the world." So let's cheer up a little and not look at everything through the lens of fear. This is great!
Re: (Score:3)
Science is absolutely about competition. The "Space Race" was the single greatest time in scientific advancement in history. Being the first to do something great is a fantastic motivator. It is also very rewarding and drives people to do their best work as well as drives people to question the results.
I can't think of anything more scientific than competition. The desire to be better, to do better, to create and innovate are all competitive.
Technology != Science (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Space Race" was the single greatest time in scientific advancement in history.
Not really - the space race was more about technology than science. Scientifically the problem was solved: there was no problem calculating the physics involved to go to the Moon - the problem was developing the technology capable of doing so. It was a fantastic motivator for science and remains one of mankind's shining achievements but was really the result of applying science rather than discovering new science.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. "Rocket Science" is one of the big misnomers of the past century. It really is rocket engineering (i.e. applying scientific results to solve problems). There is nothing wrong with that, but its not science.
Re: (Score:2)
To further back that up, of the 12 people who got to walk on the moon, 11 were pilots. The only scientist to go was a geologist on the very last mission.
Re:Technology != Science (Score:5, Informative)
Just to take one example, the fluid flow equations for dealing with turbulence within the combustion chamber and nozzle of the F-1 engines on the Saturn V weren't known sufficiently well to predict their behaviour. At the time, a lot of people thought that constructing such large rocket engines was insanity, and that the Saturn V should use large clusters of smaller engines like the Russian N1 did, as smaller engines were far more stable.
The problem of stabilising flow in a large combustion chamber was solved experimentally, by testing engine configurations and deliberately introducing instability in them until there was enough data to solve the problem theoretically.
The end result of all of that was that the Saturn V had a relatively simple five-engined first stage and was very reliable. In contrast, the N1 had huge numbers of engines arranged in rings, which were a nightmare to deliver fuel to, and several flights were lost in incidents of uneven fuel flow.
Re:this is the thing that bothers me (Score:5, Funny)
Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon?
John F Kennedy, 1961: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because it is easy but because it will annoy Argentina."
Re: (Score:2)
Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.
Was Europe harmed by German research in the 1930s?
Japan vs US (Score:2)
Was US industry harmed when Japan started taking research seriously, and applying it to their products? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:3)
Was US industry harmed when Japan started taking research seriously, and applying it to their products? Absolutely.
Was the average US consumer harmed? No. They benefited from cheaper, better quality, more functional products. The fact that US companies couldn't keep up is a problem with US companies. It would be extremely stupid to be afraid of others increasing the knowledge pool of humanity because we want to live in a time warp where companies incapable of innovating are protected from having to.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent science knowledge, and then it becomes a competition. Add extra points if you manage to harm commerce of countries that don't follow your definition of patents (i.e. only are valid what our citizens invent, the other country inventions could wait till some of us do the same).
Science used to be standing over the shoulders of giants... now is steping over everyone else to claim everything as yours.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
they are already a large military power
Their power is but a shadow of the United States and an even smaller portion of the entire world.
have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.
Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.
Re:this is the thing that bothers me (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.
Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market. Once foreign firms get access and have spent a considerable amount of resources getting started in China, the state forces them to manufacture a certain percent of their product in China, NOT by themselves, but it should be subcontracted out to a Chinese company (e.g., Honda China can't make, design, and manufacture all their own stuff, they have to transfer technology to some Chinese company so that the Chinese company can make it... if you don't follow their rules, the state can simply legislate your technology away, or worse [telegraph.co.uk]). Once you've transferred sufficient technology to the Chinese company, you start wondering why no more orders for your products are coming in, and then you realize that it's because the very Chinese company you've partnered with is now making the product 100% in China without your help and "entirely of their own innovation."
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/letter-bombs-11-coming-up-on-the-rail/ [wordpress.com]
So there's our economic domination. And that's just one example of it. There's lots more, and it's in the news very frequently.
Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll. The People's Liberation Army annually ventures into Bhutan dozens of times [google.com]. The government not only holds onto old conflicts [wikipedia.org] which they have dubious claim, but starts new conflicts [bbc.co.uk] semi-frequently [telegraph.co.uk]. We've also seen that when the CPC is pissed about a border, the Chinese media is used to intentionally and flagrantly lie about the facts [japanprobe.com] in order to stir up nationalism. They have also shown that they will put the government's hand in everything, ranging from travel agents [japanprobe.com] to school exchange trips [japanprobe.com] to locking up [yomiuri.co.jp] the offending country's nationals for "espionage" (punishable by death) to economic embargoes [google.com] meant to force countries to bend backwards and obey. Of course, the CPC will deny any involvement in any of these actions.
The People's Liberation Army continues to modernize and deploy more force aimed directly at Taiwan [defensenews.com]. The PLA "defense" budget continues to grow [bbc.co.uk] in the double digit percents every year, and it's almost exclusively aimed at Taiwan and the US [defense.gov] -- it's still less than 20% of the US def
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There are trailer trash who reads /. and speculate racist BS unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll risk my karma by calling you stupid.
When was the last time China conquered or acquired by conquest any land?
China holds today the territory it had about 200 years before Christ. Please cite any examples of China holding territory gained thru war in the last 200 years.
Now, the USA has acquired land by military power recently in comparison: half of Mexico (1845), Puerto Rico (1898), Guam (1898), Hawaii (1898) or made "protectorates" or installed "friendly regimes" in Chile (1973), Iraq (1963, 1973 and 1
Re: (Score:3)
repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.
Funny then that they didn't start with Hong Kong or Macau. The 2nd Guandong Boy-Scout brigade equivalent could have taken Macau at any time over decades.
Re: (Score:2)
or Taiwan, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your argument is flawed, because they are already a large military power who have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world."
This is all about openly published research. Research that is open to everyone no matter where it's performed. Military considerations do not enter into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is flawed, because they are already a large military power who have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.
Let me think a moment... Which country is now in 3 outright wars (Iraq {which isn't over}, Afghanistan and now Libya {by proxy of the UN/NATO}) and one shadow war (Pakistan). I wonder which country in the world really does want to take over the world...
Re: (Score:3)
I found this comment on chinaSMACK [chinasmack.com], but I think it fits well here, too.
Chinasmack Rule 1. Subcategory A:
i) A commenter cannot criticize one country without criticizing America in equal or greater amounts. If a poster criticizes China that person is inevitably from America, and must be met equal and opposite criticisms of the US (e.g. “But, but, America!”).
Thank you Cheech Wizard, you are in compliance with protocol and will be allowed further commenting privileges.
Re: (Score:3)
Was Japan harmed because the US developed the nuclear bomb?
Absolutely not. There are debates about the ethicality of using a nuclear bomb, and especially about dropping the second bomb, and I don't know enough to answer that question. But one thing is clear beyond doubt: the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's keep things in perspective (Score:2)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
A step rise in Chinese research - and in Indian, and other newly developed countries - means more total research happening around the world. More research and more results is a win for everyone.
In addition, the spread of research efforts mean that more avenues are explored, and that progress is not as dependent on the temporary political and scientific winds in any particular country or region.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] progress is not as dependent on the temporary political and scientific winds in any particular country or region.
Don't forget religious and cultural ideas.
For example astronomy is a subject that was held up for long time for religious/cultural reasons. For example, for very long astronomers tried anything to just be able to explain the movements of the planets on the assumption that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. They just wouldn't/couldn't accept the idea that the Sun is the centre of our solar system - let alone that even the Sun is not the centre of our universe.
Various cultures have various ideas on
The last line is the important one (Score:5, Interesting)
China may do a lot of research, but it does not seem to do a lot of good research. If you've been to China, it is understandable why: There is very much a mentality of "Whatever you want to do is ok, so long as it gets you ahead." Lying, cheating, all perfectly ok. Well maybe you can argue this works in normal life and business (though some serious downsides can be pointed out) it doesn't work in science.
Feynman put it really well (he was talking about the Challenger disaster): "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Well China's culture doesn't magically stop when you start talking universities and labs. The faking of results goes along strong, because it helps you get ahead. Publish more papers, be more prominent and all that. Works for the individual researcher, I suppose, but that means overall the research is useless. I can write as many papers as I like, fake as many results as I like, that claim that X causes Y. However if X does indeed not cause Y it doesn't do any good, I can't change reality.
Before China can become truly top at science, as in producing the most useful actual output, they'll have to have a cultural change, at least in the scientific community and probably the larger culture.
However I also fail to see why this is a big deal. I wouldn't consider myself all that worldly, but I've traveled to a fair number of countries not the US. All of them are by definition #2 or lower in science output, as well as many other things the US is #1 at. Guess what? that doesn't matter. They are nice places to live, with happy productive people, stable governments, and so on (I don't tend to visit countries that don't meet those requirements). I could move to Canada or the UK or Norway and be quite happy there. They may not be #1 in anything, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. You don't have to be the best at everything, I think maybe Americans need to learn that.
Wow this is a surprise! (Score:2)
Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.
Aww, go ahead and mod me troll. You know it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.
Aww, go ahead and mod me troll. You know it's true.
Interesting. Here's a question to ponder, how is US going to pay the debt to China?
1. commodities? Australia covers most of the mineral sector, thank you; as for agri-exports, there are countries with lower prices.
2. US production? China owns it.
3. IP? China is (or will be) ahead - this assuming China actually gives a more than a damn about IP.
4. Music/movies/entertainment? Somehow, I don't think the Chinese people are actually interested in Lady Gaga, Pink or the like.
5. "Fast pizza delivery" and othe
Here we go again... (Score:2)
However, the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality...
Let's remember that although the USA discovered the silicon chip via Bell Telephone Laboratories USA, it was not until the Japanese came around and showed us what to do with it.
Guess what, several decades later, all our electronics are Asian made! What a shame! And the recent quake in Japan exposes how dependent we are on those Asians when it comes to sophisticated chips...forget INTEL and AMD.
I am afraid this story will be repeated but with China this time.
Yeah, but we've got the most ... (Score:2)
...
facebook profiles per capita?
Yeah! That'll show 'em! Hell yeah! USA! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2)
... ummm ...
facebook profiles per capita?
Yeah! That'll show 'em! Hell yeah! USA! USA! USA!
In the same category, don't forget "fast pizza delivery".
dumb and dumber (Score:4, Insightful)
This article is dumb for (at least) two reasons:
Dumb: As noted in the slashdot summary, quantity of papers isn't the same as quality. I have published physics papers in refereed journals, and my experience is that most scientific papers are correct but utterly inconsequential. They matter to the people who published them, because those people are desperate to get permanent jobs. Period.
Dumber: It's not a nuclear arms race, it's scientific research. By the (lame) metric of quantity of papers, the U.S. has increased its "output," while China has increased its "output" as well (and at a greater rate). Why is this a bad thing? Scientific progress enriches everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, one question: If the quality of the papers being published isn't very good, as you seem to be suggesting, then how does China's increase in scientific output help to enrich everyone? It would seem to me that science as an enriching process is contingent upon quality contribution; the contrapositive of that statement being that a lack of quality necessitates a lack of enrichment.
Might I also observe that the statement "quantity of papers isn't the same as quality" applies just as surely to the US as
I hope ... (Score:3, Insightful)
When the US is a third-rate, has-been country with no scientific or technological leadership in the world, the irony will be that it wasn't the Communists or terrorists that did us in ... it was all of those so-called America-loving conservatives who reward ignorance and shun scientific knowledge, who defund scientific research and agencies, who cut education and kill financial aide for college students, who attack scientists for daring to contradict the ideology with their elitist "facts." It will have been these people who damned our country.
Re:I hope ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll be sure to hang the liberals for it.
Chinese Professor (Score:2)
Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&feature=player_embedded
Not enough funding... (Score:4, Insightful)
With people complaining about STEM brain drain [slashdot.org] due to lack of science funding from the government, and STEM grads jumping into the luscious field of finance [slashdot.org], what do you expect?
pshaw! (Score:2)
Well, fine, so they're great at SCIENCE. How good are they at spying on their own citizens, printing money, and starting senseless wars? eh? eh? Yeah, that's what I thought, the US still has that market cornered... so there.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Peter Griffin.
Ooh! I Know How to Handle This! (Score:2, Troll)
You know a country is leading ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... in scientific research when you see the following:
None of these apply to China yet, and I don't think it happen in 10 years, let alone 2 years. So, if I were an American policy maker, I'm not gonna to freak out yet.
Re:You know a country is failing (Score:3)
... in scientific research when you see the following:
- Sales and marketing are considered more important professions then doctor or scientist.
- Reality TV is considered an unmissable event.
- Solutions to problems involve cutting budgets to scientific organisations.
- It's popular to advertise your own ignorance.
- It's unpopular to show an aptitude for something.
- Scientific research in one area is halted by a religious minority waving an old book.
- You have to write lists of poorly thought out points to dissuade yourself from the fact science is failing
Not entirely (Score:4, Funny)
The USA's lead in Creation Science is expected to be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the quality of education remained the same over that time. It didn't. More years of education doesn't mean better education if people, on average, are reading less, using their heads less, and have worse teachers. People certainly have worse teachers today--which is not to say they don't have some phenomenal teachers. But forty and fifty years ago, teaching was one of the only good jobs an intelligent woman could get. You had a huge percentage of the brightest women in the country going
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are speculating. What numbers do you have to show that education has gotten worse?
Actually I would argue that the orignal plot [wikipedia.org] linked above provides such evidence. Given that the importance of education and the access to it has not significantly changed over the past few decades and that, in the same time, there has been no chance for humans to evolve to become smarter the only conclusion you are left to draw is that educational standards have dropped.
If I compare the expectations on my kids currently in primary school vs. what I was expected to learn it becomes even clearer. In fact
Re: (Score:2)
It is great that you learned polynomial calculus, but most schools didn't teach that fifty years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
I learned things in high school that my parents didn't get taught. Trig and calculus weren't taught to them from what I gather. My grandpa has a high school diploma but can't do algebra. It may be they are exceptions, but I wouldn't just assume they were taught more back then. We need some facts.
Re: (Score:2)
no, they just make for entertaining counterexamples/stories for their classes/clients.
Re:Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked in one of those. It wasn't the superior research skills of the Chinese, it was racism. Once, it was a balance of lots of nationalities, then they hired someone who only hired Chinese.
There were a lot of people who did really good work there, certainly including the Chinese members, but any time you have a top notch place composed entirely of one nationality, you know it's not merit driving hiring. And yes, I'd say that for an all caucasian crew as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're an idiot. If your logic were even remotely accurate, then Europe would be the last in the pack as far as R&D goes. Guess what? They're not.
Re:Or US tax code encourages foreign R&D (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)