The author wants to manufacture demand. It's not that easy.
It is simple, but not easy. Just replicate DARPA+NIH+NSF, and increase the total research budget by 100x, and ensure there are stable career paths to be a researcher until retirement.
Elite Underproduction
41–50 of 297 posts
Re: Elite Underproduction
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...
OP said you can make $200k straight out of undergrad, which is probably technically true, like it's technically true that I can win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is probably a new grad somewhere making $200k in far-far right tail of the distribution. Just like it's technically true that you can make $400k (or $600k or $1M, whatever the popular number to cite is now) as a software engineer. Yes, these…
I really don't think it's that far out in the tails, especially given we're discussing top universities. If you're at MIT/Harvard/Stanford you're definitely aiming for 200k TC fresh out of undergrad.
Re: Elite Underproduction
#43The "academic meatgrinder" ignores the fact that a plurality of top PhD and MS programs' students are international, usually from Europe, India or China. There are deeper issues at play - like the fact that American K-12 schools often have an anti-intellectual culture and American culture as a whole does not place sufficient emphasis on doing well in school.
I don't really think the connection you're trying to draw follows immediately. There are very strong domestic students, probably enough to fill all the top PhD programs. The calculus for pursuing a PhD is different if you're a domestic vs international student. If you're international and want to move to and eventually live in the US, where some of the highest paying jobs in the world are available, then first gettin…
If that was the case then FAANG wouldn't be filled with Asians and engineers from ex-Soviet countries. The makeup of high paying tech companies does not represent in any way the makeup of the American population. I posit the reason this is the case is American culture and anti-intellectualism.
If you look at top public school undergrad programs that don't practice affirmative action (UC's, UW) the programs are almost 50% Asian.
To be clear, when I say American I mean someone whose ancestors have lived in America for multiple generations, since at least the 1950's. I'm the child of immigrants and I don't consider myself an American. My culture places a distinctly different emphasis on educational achievement compared to what you might consider an American.
Re: Elite Underproduction
#44It feels like the problem is tied to our understanding of what's important as a society. We agree more or less that money represents value, even if people say it doesn't their actions say they it does. I think the more we double down on this as gospel the further our manufactured/perceived reality can move away from the underlying truth of the world. Money only represents short term value well. I think at some point…
Money represents immediate value, and basic science is long term value, and it's very difficult to get money to jump that temporal gap.
Re: Elite Underproduction
#45Most of the frontiers our society explored and expanded in the last 80 years were borne from world war 1 and 2 technological advancements I'd argue, more so than true elites emerging (or those elites emerged due to WW2, e.g. Turing and Von Braun). If you agree with the author that we need these frontiers, then that's a scary thing for the future of civilization.
Re: Elite Underproduction
#46The "academic meatgrinder" ignores the fact that a plurality of top PhD and MS programs' students are international, usually from Europe, India or China. There are deeper issues at play - like the fact that American K-12 schools often have an anti-intellectual culture and American culture as a whole does not place sufficient emphasis on doing well in school.
America produce huge amount of smart educated people. They choose to not do PhD, because financially it is often sucky decision.
It has nothing to do with elementary or high schools performance. Those produce capable kids enough. It has to do with decisions and priorities those people have as young adults. And they are not even making bad decisions, for them not doing PhD is rational choice.
Re: Elite Underproduction
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...
OP said you can make $200k straight out of undergrad, which is probably technically true, like it's technically true that I can win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is probably a new grad somewhere making $200k in far-far right tail of the distribution. Just like it's technically true that you can make $400k (or $600k or $1M, whatever the popular number to cite is now) as a software engineer. Yes, these…
Its far more likely that you make 200k out of college than win the lottery, in fact at top schools i think most students would disappointed if they didn't get close to that number
Re: Elite Underproduction
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...
OP said you can make $200k straight out of undergrad, which is probably technically true, like it's technically true that I can win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is probably a new grad somewhere making $200k in far-far right tail of the distribution. Just like it's technically true that you can make $400k (or $600k or $1M, whatever the popular number to cite is now) as a software engineer. Yes, these…
His comment was in reference to the lack of PhD as an explanation of the lack of PhDs as mentioned in TFA. He then went to say that the ability to get $200k out of undergrad was, and I quote:
> Makes a technical PhD a lot less tempting
If it's as rare as you are saying, then it wouldn't factor into the broader reasoning of people debating to get PhDs at all. That's my point. I wasn't making any point that it isn't possible to make $200k/year out of undergrad.
Re: Elite Underproduction
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because of visas. In the US you can study CS at a good school now and make $200k straight out of undergrad. Makes a technical PhD a lot less tempting
Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...
From my new grad offer letters 2 years ago :)
Re: Elite Underproduction
#50> In the long run, creating more understanding of the physical world is probably more universally valuable to human flourishing than the far more parochial 'make money number go up' Citation needed. Moreover, dedicating resources to finance can be seen as dedicating resources to better dedicate resources. (I upvoted the article since it's interesting stuff)
I think the money number go up thing is not working, and I'm sure study of the physical world is part of the solution, but the biggest gains for our society seem to be in the way we structure our lifes. I think the coming decades, the study of eudaimonia will be key to our advancement as a species.
I asserted that using money as a mechanism for gradient ascent is not working. I will walk you through my thinking, since this is an off beat claim.
1) Not all human needs are related to resources. Money cannot buy dignity, or love, and in-fact can generate the opposite of these qualities in one's life.
2) Most 1st World Humans have everything they need, materially, and more
3) Suicide is the ultimate statement of 'I am not having a good time'
4) Wealth is not hugely overwhelmingly correlated with lower suicide rates, with some of the wealthiest countries clocking in the highest rates of suicide. Source: List of countries by suicide rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... (Sort by all descending)
5) I believe some other element or spirit is being maximized in happy countries, which also leads to wealth.
6) We should try to maximize a certain social spirit, which then maximizes wealth, instead of trying to directly maximize wealth.
7) GDP is a strange metric, which doesn't directly map to abundance. Yet, socially, we try to maximize it. I think this metric is victim to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
Thoughts?