# Reason behind its science and technology power

1. Jul 7, 2005

### redgoat

As we all know, the United States is No1 leading country in the science and technology in the world. Is this because of its quality of education system? What do you think ?

2. Jul 7, 2005

### zeronem

I think you should check your facts before stating something like that.

I don't know about Science, but I have heard Japan is two years ahead of us in Technology.

3. Jul 7, 2005

### neurocomp2003

yes i blieve some of the eastern worlds have better technology like the japan eg.

as for education:i doubt USA is better than most in terms of K-12 or even undergrad(prolly doesn't even crack the top10)...

7. Jul 8, 2005

### Nusc

If I am not mistaken, then the world of science depends on our survival and our survival depends on all of science. All it would take is a few nukes to deduce us to nothing, then Einstein would stand corrected.

*Laugh*

Last edited: Jul 8, 2005
8. Jul 8, 2005

### Maxos

The reason is simple:

America has got a lot of raw materials.
America has won the latest egemony-war.

Anyway, the USA are the first country in the world for the number of patents, this tell us you are the first in technology and not in science (if we agree on the meaning of the two words), EG A new vaccine against AIDS has been prepared in Italy, it has succesfully passed all of the clinical tests, but we have no money to begin the experimentation, we might be forced to sell the patent to some american institute, and say hello to the incomes.

9. Jul 8, 2005

### marlon

In the old days people used to say this :

the holy trinity of science :
The French invent
The Germans implement it technologically
The Americans sell it and get rich

I would not say that the Us educational system is that great. It is difficult to judge because it has so many variations in level when you compare different colleges back there. Also, keep in mind that most people on the key positions are not even US-natives...

I was at a conference two weeks ago (INFOS2005) and the two professors from Stanford that attended it where Indian. Robert Chau from Intel was also there
http://www.imec.be/infos/INFOS2005-Welcome.pdf [Broken]
marlon
marlon

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
10. Jul 8, 2005

### TOKAMAK

Why is stem cell research always equated to embryonic stem cell research?
Here is an article I found quickly off google:

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-34052.html [Broken]

With respect to the quality of American education system, I think it appears evident from some of the other threads in this forum that we (The US) are way behind, for example, many European schools and universities.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
11. Jul 8, 2005

### BobG

Your statements are a little outdated, but were once true. Especially during the 50's and the early days of the cold war, the US invested a lot in its education system - especially in math and sciences. The US still might be at the top at the college level because of money (I wouldn't say that's certain, anymore), but the quality of public education at the elementary and secondary level has definitely declined.

The emphasis has shifted from practical applications to using the school as a vehicle for social doctrines. People are more concerned about whether schools are teaching respect for other cultures and lifestyles and whether schools are encouraging or undermining religious beliefs than whether schools are preparing kids to get a job. The end result is fewer American kids even choosing to go into careers requiring advanced science or math.

12. Jul 10, 2005

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
This latest report may be relevant here...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050708/sc_nm/economy_usa_science_dc [Broken]

Zz.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
13. Jul 10, 2005

### exequor

I don't know about science but in terms of technology I think that Japan is always a year or two ahead. A good example of this is wireless communications.

After comparing the electrical and computer engineering syallabus of a university and one in the US, I clearly saw that a bachelors degree in hong kong is almost equal to a masters degree in the US.

14. Jul 12, 2005

### EnumaElish

So's Sweden and Finland, but does that mean these two are on their way to growth leadership in new technologies? :rofl:

U.S. has been and still is #1 in commercial applications of science and technology, hands way down. Three examples: Internet, digital film studios and private-capital space travel. If someone can invent (or adopt) something that money can be made out of, they should invent (or adopt) it -- still nowhere truer than in the States
What follows are vast generalizations and do not apply to individual cases.

IMHO, U.S. is also still #1 in graduate-level education. For a good 25 years or so U.S. has been free riding on other countries' HS and undergrad college education. It was a system that worked; sort of an international division of labor in education. Roughly, each country invested resources into the level of education with the highest rates of return for that country. And so, poor nations invested in primary schooling through HS; middle-income countries invested in HS thru undergrad; rich nations (esp. the U.S.) invested in (some undergrad but) mainly grad and post-grad, and integrated it with their growth industries. In some sense this was also a global optimum -- to the extent that it successfully created the next generation of growth-driving industries. The States didn't especially need to raise scientifically apt grad school applicants as long as they could import them; far cheaper, and good for everybody, "if we say so ourselves."

In the near future I think there are 2 potential challenges to this system. 1. "Importing" grad applicants (and foreign nationals generally) has become more expensive because of "perceived security" costs; someone has to pay an "import tax" -- most likely to be shared between the school and the applicant. 2. As global growth continues, non-U.S. employment may increasingly become a better substitute for U.S. employment for intellectually inclined individuals. I think the U.S. will continue to be a magnet for the more ambitious even among this type of individuals, though.

Last edited: Jul 12, 2005
15. Jul 13, 2005

### Rayne

Dumbing down the Population?

article is a little old, but if you browse sciences career forums the general feeling still seems to be alot of PhDs are not finding work and so instead just do more dissertations. Alot of politicians talk about a "shortage of scientists" but it seems the market isnt even utilizing alot of the ones we have already.

http://www.medzilla.com/fah-4.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
16. Jul 13, 2005

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
I disagree with that. Furthermore, what you linked to is an opinion, not any specific "proof". Besides, how does one "do more dissertations"? Your advisor is not going to have you stick around longer than necessary because he/she has more incoming students to support if they are all on some kind of assistantship.

Ph.D in physics in the US is STILL a valuable degree with plenty of opportunities for employment with ONE big caveat: it DEPENDS on what area and what field of physics you got your Ph.D in.

The AIP has compiled the most comprehensive statistics on physics employment in the US. I suggest anyone making any statement on physics employment to look at these first.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/emptrends.html

Zz.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
17. Jul 13, 2005

### marlon

Just wondering, if you make about 100.000 dollars a year, is that good money in the US ?

marlon

18. Jul 13, 2005

### Rayne

Re:

Im pretty sure average household income is in the 50,000 range so 100,000 is good

19. Jul 13, 2005

### Rayne

Re:

Well for Physics that may not be that case, if so, then thats great.

For people trying to enter Biotech without prior experience it seems like getting hired is a long shot.

20. Jul 13, 2005

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Don't be offended by this, but I would ask you for a proof of that beyond just anecdotal hearsay.

I say this because Biotechnology is one of the most aggressive field currently. During both the Clinton and current Bush Administration, the NIH have had funding increase significantly MORE than the science offices of the DOE and the NSF.

Furthermore, getting in ".. without prior experience..." is a problem no matter what field you're in! This isn't indicative of the lack of job recruitement in that area.

Zz.