Comment Re:Blame Public Education (not funding) (Score 1) 1382
I'm a Latvian going to Reed here on the US West coast, doing physics, and I must say I've never met so many people willing to work so hard before in my life.
The US is a huge country, with an economic middle class that would be considered highly affluent in very many countries of the world, including the one I come from. Despite loans and everything else, it is still much easier for the average American to go to school than it is for people in other countries. As a result, a lot of people go to school in order to have fun and to party, without any real motivation to learn anything. It is not particularly surprising that the majority of students anywhere are not particularly good at studying or science or whatever, but that is only because the majority of people are not _particularly_ good at anything (it's all a distribution curve - and the end of the curve that, say, actually forwards science is very, very far to the right). Elsewhere, the mediocre might get filtered out before college; here it happens later. The end result is similar. The masses do not learn to do genetics or develop new theories of gravity, but ultimately there remain some who do.
It may be true to some extent, however, that studying is less "cool" here in the States than elsewhere. There's good reason for it. Historically, what is "cool" or attractive or whatever has been determined by what indicates you're doing well in life. It was cool and good-looking to be portly once since that indicated a certain level of affluence. Today, that level of affluence is commonplace (though, of course, not ubiquitous) in the US; therefore, chubbiness is no longer the thing (not necessarily so in rural China, though - the Mandarin word "pang" (2nd tone if I remember correctly, though maybe not), fat, still has connotations far more pleasant than those of "fat"). It is the same with education. In a land where you have to work very, very hard for any acceptable standard of living, the smarter you are - the more weapons you have for securing some affluence - the better.
In the US, however, you can work behind a counter in a shop and earn more than, say, a tenured chemistry professor will make in Beijing. Even with higher commodity prices, one can still afford to not work that hard and live "the good life" instead - have fun and play around. Therefore, smarts have lost some of their coolness factor.
It is merely a function of wealth. Progress is driven by need. The more satisfied people feel, the less motivation they have. Here in the US, food and clothing is no longer motivation enough. I am sure the same thing will eventually happen in India.
Does that mark the end of intellectual advancement? Hardly. There's still a lot of us who care for knowledge for knowledge's sake; a lot of us who innovate because to innovate is neat. And there's a lot of us who think that there is more to a good life than eating, drinking, dressing and playing well. Our motivation is now curiosity and a wish to see a brighter future for mankind rather than the need to eat and survive.
The US is a huge country, with an economic middle class that would be considered highly affluent in very many countries of the world, including the one I come from. Despite loans and everything else, it is still much easier for the average American to go to school than it is for people in other countries. As a result, a lot of people go to school in order to have fun and to party, without any real motivation to learn anything. It is not particularly surprising that the majority of students anywhere are not particularly good at studying or science or whatever, but that is only because the majority of people are not _particularly_ good at anything (it's all a distribution curve - and the end of the curve that, say, actually forwards science is very, very far to the right). Elsewhere, the mediocre might get filtered out before college; here it happens later. The end result is similar. The masses do not learn to do genetics or develop new theories of gravity, but ultimately there remain some who do.
It may be true to some extent, however, that studying is less "cool" here in the States than elsewhere. There's good reason for it. Historically, what is "cool" or attractive or whatever has been determined by what indicates you're doing well in life. It was cool and good-looking to be portly once since that indicated a certain level of affluence. Today, that level of affluence is commonplace (though, of course, not ubiquitous) in the US; therefore, chubbiness is no longer the thing (not necessarily so in rural China, though - the Mandarin word "pang" (2nd tone if I remember correctly, though maybe not), fat, still has connotations far more pleasant than those of "fat"). It is the same with education. In a land where you have to work very, very hard for any acceptable standard of living, the smarter you are - the more weapons you have for securing some affluence - the better.
In the US, however, you can work behind a counter in a shop and earn more than, say, a tenured chemistry professor will make in Beijing. Even with higher commodity prices, one can still afford to not work that hard and live "the good life" instead - have fun and play around. Therefore, smarts have lost some of their coolness factor.
It is merely a function of wealth. Progress is driven by need. The more satisfied people feel, the less motivation they have. Here in the US, food and clothing is no longer motivation enough. I am sure the same thing will eventually happen in India.
Does that mark the end of intellectual advancement? Hardly. There's still a lot of us who care for knowledge for knowledge's sake; a lot of us who innovate because to innovate is neat. And there's a lot of us who think that there is more to a good life than eating, drinking, dressing and playing well. Our motivation is now curiosity and a wish to see a brighter future for mankind rather than the need to eat and survive.
