Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 180 posts

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#51

Post by komali2 »

tshaddox wrote: post #41
SimianSci wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While indeed a positive outlook, I think alot of Americans are beginning to wonder what the benefit will be to them. The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development. While I dont agree with the sentiment, its not entirely incorrect to describe such relationships are parasitic more then…

> The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development. I'm not sure I buy your claim that this is the reason for the rhetoric. And if you're right that this is the reason for the rhetoric, it's extremely flawed reasoning.

Diminishing material conditions makes a fertil breeding ground for right wing nationalism (isolationism and xenophobia). It's a pattern being replicated all over the world. UK citizens don't have high heat bills and sewage leaking into their rivers because of privatization and Brexit, it's because there's too many refugees!

Of course it's incorrect, but without the diminishing material conditions, it's a lot harder to get people to drum up the energy to be racist.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#52

Post by vannevar »

selimthegrim wrote: post #36
integralid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is not "exporting" anything. PhDs are people, they pay for their education and they leave. Nevertheless responding to your question: >Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share

STEM PhD students do not pay for their education

This is manifestly not true. What leads you to believe this? Certainly there are some who don't, just as with undergraduate education. But there's no blanket program in the US to pay for all STEM PhDs.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#53

Post by travisgriggs »

I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american education" that is now 20+ years old. As the students (children) go through the programs, they are finding it increasingly more hostile to live and study here. So they end up wanting to "go back home". The Xenophobic rhetoric, as well as the policies, are having an effect. He does not see this as a good thing at all.

Multiple of my children have considered moving abroad to study. It's weird to sit between them and their frustration of the system, and their grandparents (our parents) who seem to think that the crap they're embibing off of fox news, all so that advertisers can target/fleece the older generation, will actually lead to good for their grandchildren.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#54

Post by lingrush4 »

resters wrote: post #42

It's the second (so far bc he hasn't ruled out a third) presidential term for a strongly anti-immigrant / anti-immigration president who has a lot of support domestically. Immigrants are being chased out of the US in record numbers. Many of my friends with brown skin (second generation immigrants) are worried their kids will be harrassed by ICE, etc. The sad fact is that there are a LOT of Americans who deeply resent…

Sorry to ruin your mudslinging, but if you read the second sentence of the linked study, you'll see the American voters' choice of president has nothing to do with this:

> Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#55

Post by globalnode »

my view for a long time has been that the usa is a net importer of talent and ideas. that its cheaper to have someone spend 20 odd years training in another country and then just lure them in with the promise of big $... isnt that how its been working? or is this some new spin.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#56

Post by komali2 »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #33
sailfast wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My read: China is seen as a serious geopolitical rival that the United States must beat in a shooting or Cold or AI or war. As a result PHDs to China as an export would be a negative impact, not a positive one potentially.

When looking at China, this fable has been on my mind for the longest even as I’d hoped that market forces would liberalize it: https://fablesofaesop.com/the-eagle-and-the-arrow.html Obviously, any hopes evaporated with China’s heavy-handed approach to Hong Kong.

Or their constant threats against Taiwan, or their oppression of LGBT people in their borders, or their genocide against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, or their heel-turn into racialized nationalism (Han Chauvinism).

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#57

Post by advisedwang »

The more important question is: what is the rate of scientists coming in vs going out?

If they are in balance, then it looks a lot less of a problem. It may even be the case that because of the desirability of working in the US for US institutions the US is gaining the best from all around the world and shipping out a more mixed ability set.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#58

Post by nutjob2 »

integralid wrote: post #18
SimianSci wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While indeed a positive outlook, I think alot of Americans are beginning to wonder what the benefit will be to them. The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development. While I dont agree with the sentiment, its not entirely incorrect to describe such relationships are parasitic more then…

The US is not "exporting" anything. PhDs are people, they pay for their education and they leave. Nevertheless responding to your question: >Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share

So let me see: a person from another country receives a service that is exclusive, very limited and in high demand (PhD), pays for it, and that person eventually takes it back to country of origin.

US education must be in a woeful state because that is the definition of export.

Given the exclusivity and value of the service you'd think you'd want to hang on to it, but I guess xenophobia is one thing that is more important than money.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#59

Post by materials4028 »

msteffen wrote: post #29

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more he…

> much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available

Expanding on this a bit, insight credited to bonoboTP: in a steady state the number of junior faculty positions will only open up at the same rate as current faculty retires. But each faculty member is expected to train dozens of students that are all in principle qualified for such jobs. Therefore, the vast majority, let's say 95%, of PhD graduates have to take industry jobs, there is no way around it. But this does not seem to be the goal of the 95%, hence the incredibly tight job market. Returning to their home country for a faculty job acts as another release valve, but sooner or later those will be filled as well, except in countries in the rapidly expanding phase in terms of university education.

The tenure system is incredibly broken as a result. Ideally, I think there needs to be more non-faculty careers available for PhD graduates either outside or inside academia. After all, there is clearly some value in the work a PhD student does, otherwise they would not be paid. Perhaps we can have public or semi-public research institutions that hire these scientists for actual development. Most likely this will require an upstream incentive change so that grants are awarded to these newly minted organizations.

Universities charge a large overhead in part to cover the "tuition" for the PhD students, which is really a meaningless number since it's taken out of the same check they give you the remainder of. If we just strip out this part and give most of it to the scientist, economically it should be a viable salary.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#60

Post by MostlyStable »

msteffen wrote: post #29

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more he…

If the culture normalized such that a much larger proportion of research was conducted by permanent, non-faculty, research employees, this would both reduce the need for so many students and increase the jobs available for students, and create a new employment niche with a different balance of teaching/administration/research. It would basically be turning "post doc" into an actual career rather than a stop over.

This would be better for everyone involved, at the admitted cost of being quite a bit more expensive. My guess is that the market would naturally converge on this equilibrium if the information of job placement rates on a per-program (or even per lab/advisor) were more readily available.

Post reply on HN