February 10, 2010
What's Happened to America's Scientific Greatness?
Marvin J. Cetron with David A. Patten in NewsMax Magazine:
“CrazybOy” — the “handle” of programmer Bin Jin, a remarkable 18-year-old high school student from Shanghai — bested 4,200 other competitors (many of them code-writing pros with masters degrees and Ph.D.s) to win TopCoder's annual algorithm contest. He and others delivered a
Sputnik-style beat-down to the United States in the process.Of the 70 finalists, 20 were Chinese. Ten were Russian. Six were Indonesian. Six more came from Ukraine. Four of the finalists were Canadian. Poland (population 38 million), the Philippines (92 million), and Argentina (40 million) placed three programmers apiece in the finals. The number of U.S. finalists: two. The number of U.S. champions in the nine events: none.
Experts say it's further proof that science and math illiteracy are endangering U.S. global competitiveness, and could even threaten U.S. national security. After all, it's no accident the
contest was sponsored by the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA) — the cryptographic “puzzle palace” in Fort Meade, Md.Increasingly, science and national security are one. Officers in trailers at U.S. air bases pilot unmanned drones to seek and destroy terrorists in Afghanistan. (In fact, Creech Air Force Base, only 35 miles northwest of the Las Vegas resort where the TopCoder Open was held, conducts such missions daily.)
The bottom line: Lamentations about the state of U.S. science are more than fodder for PTA meetings.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 03:01 AM | Permalink
Comments
I don't even know where to start with this horrible article. First, Newsmax?! Is this some sort of post-modern irony that I'm reading about increases in science funding from an anti-tax, anti-government news organization?
Lets be realistic: China and East Asia has over a third of the world's population. As things even out, the region should be expected to have, in absolute numbers, a larger share of the talented. This is not a "threat."
Anyway, a programming contest is not a good measure of scientific output. Studies on scientific publishing do show increases in good quality work coming from China, but they still rank far below where they should proportionally. Here's a question for the authors of this piece: is it U.S. policy that China should remain below it's potential? Wouldn't that be a bit racist?
And hello? Whoever this "futurist" is, he doesn't know much about computer science. The implication that one studies *programming* in graduate school is quite wrong, and largely propagated by poor ugrad programs who are churning out good little programmers for large IT firms. Therefore expecting M.S. and Phd students to perform better in a programing contest than a bachelors with a couple years work experience shows a rather poor understanding of what is even being taught. PhDs might, *might*, be better equipped to handle theoretical problems, but most are concentrated on one little area, and even if they solved it probably couldn't program it particularly fast.
The U.S. has serious math and science problems. However, Newsmax's solutions are half B.S. Online classrooms? You know why kids do "better" on-line? They can look stuff up. The sentence "this would cut costs" in an article about why American education is in the crapper is hilarious. Train teachers to use computers as classroom aids?! Can we please get off the idea that learning with a computer is somehow better than learning in pen and paper? It depends. Clearly, learning computer science without computers is like learning to sail without water. However, focusing on making math "fun" with computers has been a failure (IMHO, my data points being students), and should not be continuously encouraged by "futurists" with no experience in the classroom and egos larger than the moon. Computers are a tool; when they are used to continuously support mathematical reasoning, it's no surprise that those using them perform poorly without them. Learn the theory first, then use it on a computer.
Anti-science leaders like Sarah Palin, who Newsmax explicitly supports, don't help either. I'm having trouble digesting medicine from the beast that is trying to kill me.
To conclude, GGRRRRR! I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
(By the way, programming contests are great fun. If you're in college, look into it.)
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 10, 2010 6:22:10 AM
The USA has always relied heavily on immigrant scientists. The WWII era and the immediate postwar era saw the cream of European science move from an intolerable political situation in their homelands to the freer air of the USA. They, and the grand projects that they brought with them, fired the imagination of US born scientists. However, with the death of the manned US space program and the lackluster support for grand scientific projects, closure of the renowned Bell Labs, etc., a slow decline set in.. Sept. 11 2001 further accelerated it by rendering the USA less hospitable for immigrant scientists..
I don't imagine working on Bradley Fighting Vehicle armor has the same capacity to motivate young people to study science/math.. The fact that science is often closely coupled with war (in the USA at least) is also probably somewhat discouraging for the young people..
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 6:27:25 AM
Our science is heavily influenced by military and corporate interests.
The "Mythical Man Month" is a book that exposes our widespread national lack of understanding of the nature of software development.
A lack of understanding that applies mass production concepts to a discipline that does not work that way.
Consequently, over the past decade or so, we farm it out to other nations at an alarming rate.
Which does not work that well either.
Posted by: Dredd | Feb 10, 2010 6:44:54 AM
Fascinating. No wonder so many Americans are unconvinced by climate science, evolution, etc.
Posted by: Mike Cope | Feb 10, 2010 8:34:27 AM
Americans can't even spell basic words like "brake". See how many posters in sites like Prius.com refer to the recent "break" problem.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Feb 10, 2010 9:10:01 AM
Perhaps our scientific greatness would still exist if people didn't squander so much time debating religion and abortion. Carlos, I'm looking at you....
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Feb 10, 2010 9:14:40 AM
Perhaps our scientific greatness would still exist if people didn't squander so much time debating religion and abortion. Carlos, I'm looking at you....
If people like Einstein are 1 in a million, and we've killed 50 million fetuses since Roe v Wade...
Well you do the math, billy won't let me.
Now see? Another thread infected. But 50 Million. Wow.
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 10, 2010 10:00:09 AM
Carlos, you know that argument is logically fallacious in so many ways that it is an embarassment that it appears on this forum....
Great people, be they scientists, are born with the potential to do great things, but it is also the environment in which they grow up that has a huge effect on them. Einstein had an early mentor (Max Talmey) who ignited his intellectual curiosity...and the opportunity to think at length about a profound question: "What would happen if I could ride along with a light-wave? What would that wave look like then?"
Any scientist is a product of his/her times...and knows what the important questions are. This is what is being lost in modern society, IMHO: the ability to ask good questions....and I don't think the Chinese are very good at it either....
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 10:23:39 AM
Carlos,
Do you seriously consider any woman that has had an abortion a murderer? If so, you are criminalizing probably half the women in the United States, and rendering the term "murderer" meaningless.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Feb 10, 2010 10:31:27 AM
"IMHO: the ability to ask good questions....and I don't think the Chinese are very good at it either...."
Bill,
Don't underestimate the Chinese. They are going great guns on alternative energy technologies like electric vehicles, wind turbines, biomass, etc. I fully expect they will overtake the US in scientific patents soon.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Feb 10, 2010 10:41:14 AM
In terms of the programming contest mentioned above, another thing is that a lot of Americans just don't care. When you're somewhere like Eastern Europe or China where there may be a scarcity of jobs and an excess of free time, people do things like TopCoder. In the US, you go to work (more often).
Posted by: Adam | Feb 10, 2010 10:54:45 AM
JH,
The Chinese are great at copying others and (re)developing existing technologies, but real creative scientific/technical thinking seems lacking.. In my professional contact with Chinese high-tech companies, there is usually a core of western-educated that provides the intellectual drive, but I was stunned by the development strategy used: 100s of engineers in a lab each working on "something" that resembled the desired product..the idea being that "in time, one will get it right!" Sort of the 1000000-monkeys with typewriters eventually banging the complete works of Shakespeare. There was little attempt to "think" about a problem before doing it... Google searches are what counts as "thinking" and research.
Time may prove me wrong, of course. Most Chinese students that I have had were incredibly hard workers and extremely smart people...if their society opens up and intellectual openness takes hold, we are truly in trouble here in the West! The risk for the Chinese is a societal implosion from some (yet unforeseen) economic or natural catastrophe...
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 10:56:23 AM
"...western-educated people..."
"...banging out the complete..."
Sorry about my lack of proofreading...
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 10:59:18 AM
Bill, what does it mean to "be in trouble in the West?" Will we suddenly lose our ability to do cool and interesting things?
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 10, 2010 12:45:49 PM
I have to agree with Cyrus Hall, linking to an article from NewsMax, which makes Fox News look "fair and balanced" is pretty much beyond the pale.
One reason that people in the US aren't going into software engineering much is that computer science is a difficult major with questionable future prospects. Jobs have been offshored (to places like India and, perhaps, China). Age discrimination and gender discrimination are common. There is little in the way of job security. The field is fascinating, but these negative factors tend to discourage young people.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Feb 10, 2010 1:19:57 PM
No Cyrus. We can still do cool things, but no one will want to pay us to do them...
Imagine: 100 000 000 guys doing cool things in China; 10 000 guys doing cool things in USA/Europe... Who can do more cool things at a lower cost per amount of coolness! ;-)
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 1:27:49 PM
Bill-
I guess I'm not convinced that markets work that way. Often it's the small team that offers a cheap (and high quality) alternative to a heavy-weight behemoth that can't do anything without involving 20 layers of middle management. The traditional economic cost of production curve is a myth: large doesn't guarantee increased efficiency per unit.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 10, 2010 1:52:06 PM
Cyrus,
I agree with you. I am not for a minute defending the economic "behemoth" as a viable model for innovation. I do not think the "Chinese" way that I observed is a very good way to do things. Resources are wasted on an unimaginable scale. And, like you, I believe that individuals and small groups are the best way to attack tough problems.
The point I was trying to make was that if China (meaning China's political/economic elite) manages to discover the "secret" to creativity/innovation that has been well known for years in places like Silicon Valley, we will really be playing a catch-up game! I don't think this will happen any time soon, tho'.. (for at least a generation or 2)
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 2:16:45 PM
That said, we can't sit back and do nothing. All it means is that we still have some "breathing space". If we want a place in the world order that includes a rising China (or India, Brazil, etc.), we need to lift our game...not so much because of some perceived military threat (tho' there is that possibility too), but to avoid slipping into irrelevance and to avoid the instability that comes with socio-economic decline in our own countries as well!
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2010 2:31:37 PM
Bill, I hear you on not sitting back and resting on our laurels. Indeed, as the rest of the world grabs more resources, we will have to release some of ours. This is both inevitable (well, as much as anything can be inevitable) and fair. America and Europe both use much more than their fair share of the resources of this world. If we are to maintain the quality of life we have come to enjoy, we need to get cracking and figure out how to do more with less. A nice side-effect of that work are new technologies, new methods, and general innovation that we can sell to the rest of the world.
To bring that back to the article, in order to deliver on the promise of renewable and green societies, we need great science and math. I just don't see that need as having to be driven by a forced adversarial relationship.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 10, 2010 4:24:48 PM
I wonder to what extent the sense that American science is decaying is tied to the increasing politicization of science itself.
Posted by: chris | Feb 10, 2010 4:56:21 PM
The more good scientists in the world, the better. Who cares whether they live in China or the U.S.?
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Feb 10, 2010 5:33:35 PM
Oh and by the way Bill, yes I know my argument is fallacious, I was just tweaking Hawkins for tweaking me (I'm trying to get out J, but they keep dragging me back in).
On the other hand, how many Max Talmey's have we lost?
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 11, 2010 11:37:33 AM
-
The 'politicization of Science' means it is accomplished by government-directed money, public tax money. One way of influence is public oversight and redress of the spending, (also science-minded politicking by elected representatives -- so maybe military membership (is it really 'service'?) is a disqualification for seeking election). A second way of influence is increased private-made Science, the influence of creativity and imagination in a signal individual, more Orville-and-Wilbur's in their bicycle shoppe drawing airfoils.
I so agree with Cyrus's start; "horrible article'" 'Newsmax?? NEWSMax!?? Gag me with a mouse click.' The 'us-versus-them' conflict provocation there, whether it's China this time or France last time or Venezuela tomorrow nevermind Iran IS ALL BOGUS, void 'Newsmax,' the content is bogus -- something chosen for 'framing' in Rightist description of fear words, 'conflict' 'threat' 'defeat' which polarizes more money be spent on the 'defense' word -- and in the 'Newsmax' (truthlax, veri-toss) instance the Rightist 'conflict' framing is blatantly bogus because Science doesn't work that way, Science works by 'common interest' 'collaboration' 'inspiration' 'application' 'peer review' and 'juried advance' and the enemy is any barrier stopping or valve controlling information and communication flow, i.e., 'defense,' i.e., 'Top Secrecy,' i.e. Rightist totalitarianism. I.e., 'Newsmax.'
Eisenhower issued a famous 'warning' speech at his elevation to emeritus, (shades of Geo Washington saying to quit after two terms, before corruption gets its primal-grip of addiction dependency), and Americans half-know half of IKE's Warnings: the one about 'beware the Military-Industrial complex' (subverting statecraft, governance and sovereignty). The ignored OTHER Warning is: beware the Scientific-Technical elite (subverting statecraft, governance and sovereignty).
A fashion of 'political' (polity) thought by non-adapting minds who have insufficient votage to tear down the wall of separation between Church and State, seem to go for a Plan B to build up a wall of separation between Science and State.
Which isn't going to happen either; the advent of Science (1660, say) is what instituted (induced) Statecraft, through information and communication -- before then all politics was monarchy.
Translation: Omit 'Newsmax.' Read Wired.com.
Posted by: Meremark | Feb 11, 2010 1:17:09 PM
"the content is bogus -- something chosen for 'framing' in Rightist description of fear words, 'conflict' 'threat' 'defeat' which polarizes more money be spent on the 'defense' word -- and in the 'Newsmax' (truthlax, veri-toss) instance the Rightist 'conflict' framing is blatantly bogus because Science doesn't work that way, Science works by 'common interest' 'collaboration' 'inspiration' 'application' 'peer review' and 'juried advance' and the enemy is any barrier stopping or valve controlling information and communication flow, i.e., 'defense,' i.e., 'Top Secrecy,' i.e. Rightist totalitarianism. I.e., 'Newsmax.'"
Exactly. And just as science and, for that matter, art thrive on the free flow of information, the national security state thrives on secrecy, fear and paranoia. It's all us vs. them. It's at the heart of religion and nationalism. It's a bore.
Posted by: J.Hawkins | Feb 11, 2010 2:14:52 PM
Post a comment