Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel who wrote (176899)	2/5/2004 5:52:13 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

re: I think engineering programs need to intercept the best and brightest at the undergraduate level no, by then it is too late. Goals in live are formed at much earlier age re: One mechanism would be to make engineering education essentially free cost is not really essential - graduate programs are virtually free for those who are willing to teach and undegraduate schools are just looking to give away scholarships to those who are interested in natural sciences and applied math

To: Noel who wrote (176899)	2/6/2004 12:14:29 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"Another reason is the perception that the brightest American students go into law, medicine, and business> Not sure about business but there is some truth to this. Our system has set these professions as greed professions. I think we lose too many of the best to this greed. Jim

To: Noel who wrote (176899)	2/6/2004 1:09:50 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

"Another reason is the perception that the brightest American students go into law, medicine, and business." This is not a perception, it is just a simple statistical consequence of the American freedom and general organization of the society. Brightest young people are simply evenly spread across all these opportunities, including science and engineering. In other countries you mention, there was no law, business was prohibited, and the medicine was free (with low wage level). As a result of natural career planning, most bright people were concentrated in natural sciences and research/engineering (and music/arts maybe). That's why their concentration in those areas is higher and consequently the quality of the top is better. It looks like the current American policy in education is very pragmatical - it is much cheaper to crop the cream from high-populated countries (bigger base of talent) than to cultivate own talent. As long as perception of higher quality of life in America is in place, the situation with education will remain as it is now. All my theory of course... - Ali

To: Noel who wrote (176899)	2/6/2004 2:36:14 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Noel, RE: "You seem to be implying that if only the government funded more US students to go to graduate school, we would have more of them" ----------------- If the US funded students (from any country) we'd have more grad students. There's a direct relationship. RE: "the perception that the brightest American students go into law, medicine, and business." I don't share this perception you may have. Nor do my friends who are professors at research universities have this perception. First I've heard of this notion, actually. A rather surprising notion you have. I see many Engineers who are geniuses. Business and law school courses seem easier than Engineering, but even so, I wouldn't draw conclusions on any person's intelligence level based upon their field. Bright people follow their interests. The brightest person in my family is my brother who didn't go into medicine, while others did. He followed his heart and went into econ. He was one of 350 or so students in the USA that received an NSF grant many years ago when they were only funding a few hundred per year. It would be unfortunate if Professors became biased against smart Americans that follow their hearts into engineering or econ, or whatever. So, I would dismiss the biased perception that the brightest Americans enter law, business or medicine. And replace it with the practical notion that there would be more grad students if there were more funding. Regards, Amy J