Explaining Low IQ Scores in Africa, South Asia

[Devianz]

^^^^
Agreed.... Takes at least 15 yrs of hard work to get a decent pay scale in basic science field.
First Bachelors, then Masters, then PhD, then Post Doc and what not. I completed first two.. Now looking for the rest.

 

[CardSharp]

^^^^
Agreed.... Takes at least 15 yrs of hard work to get a decent pay scale in basic science field.
First Bachelors, then Masters, then PhD, then Post Doc and what not. I completed first two.. Now looking for the rest.

Beware of post-doc limbo...

 

[whocares]

Ain't that the truth. Academics don't get paid nearly enough for the effort they put in. The path to a tenured professorship, is years and years of low pay and hard work (even then tenures are becoming harder to get)

And when you get there the best you can hope for is 70k-100k and maybe 100k + for elite universities. I know because the U of Toronto posts all of their professor's salaries...

Luckily most people do it because they love their field of study and they do what they do out of passion for discovery.

Yep, What i am saying is that a smart government could increase science research output by giving the ones who have intrinsic love for the subject good research funding and job security at a larger scale independent of defense needs, as is currently the case in the US.

But again, accomplishing meritocracy, rooting out corruption and ensuring accountability are challenges most governments fail most of the time and research might not be very different.

 

[oceanx]

Ain't that the truth. Academics don't get paid nearly enough for the effort they put in. The path to a tenured professorship, is years and years of low pay and hard work (even then tenures are becoming harder to get)

And when you get there the best you can hope for is 70k-100k and maybe 100k + for elite universities. I know because the U of Toronto posts all of their professor's salaries...

Luckily most people do it because they love their field of study and they do what they do out of passion for discovery.

Truer words have not been spoken. But historically speaking "pure scientific endeavours" have never paid a mint and more often than not, turned on the whims and fortunes of some wealthy patrons/widows in one way or another.

There is always - not sure I got the right buzzword - the prospect of cashing in on some "bench-industry collaborations" bearing the ultimate fruits.

I am not saying that's the guiding light for folks in research. But the "potential" is there even in this economy ...

Unless the field in question is sociology. Even then the person can probably moonlight for the Discovery Channel or something ... if he is not spending too much time "blogging".

And finally, when nothing else pans out, one can always contemplate a professional degree of some sort as an "exit" ...

 

[oceanx]

Yep, What i am saying is that a smart government could increase science research output by giving the ones who have intrinsic love for the subject good research funding and job security at a larger scale independent of defense needs, as is currently the case in the US.

You are probably correct that all far-sighted governments of a certain size have to do that. But the problem is still where lies the shut-off valve beyond which point you got this self-perpetuating MIC where weapons have to be churned out to keep people working.

Amrika does it quite well - for now. The old Soviet Union did it reasonably well - for a time. The Third Reich did it - you be the judge how well.

But your point is otherwise well taken. Without the Cold War, there'd be no internet ... but without internet, I wouldn't be here wasting time ...

But again, accomplishing meritocracy, rooting out corruption and ensuring accountability are challenges most governments fail most of the time and research might not be very different.

I'm sure you know well that most research in the world are "me too" research ... what else can you do? There is nothing wrong with an incremental, Fabian approach based on the criteria you laid out. The results will be slow to come, that's all.

 

[CardSharp]

Truer words have not been spoken. But historically speaking "pure scientific endeavours" have never paid a mint and more often than not, turned on the whims and fortunes of some wealthy patrons/widows in one way or another.

There is always - not sure I got the right buzzword - the prospect of cashing in on some "bench-industry collaborations" bearing the ultimate fruits.

I am not saying that's the guiding light for folks in research. But the "potential" is there even in this economy ...

Unless the field in question is sociology. Even then the person can probably moonlight for the Discovery Channel or something ... if he is not spending too much time "blogging".

And finally, when nothing else pans out, one can always contemplates a professional degree of some sort as an "exit" ...

I took a course in Drug discovery recently and one of the prof's that taught it told us about his little industry adventure. He did his masters on meiotic kinesins, took his research into cancer drugs and formed a startup biotech, got as far as negotiating with big pharma, then his drug candidates promptly failed phase II clinical trials due to unresolvable toxicity issues and back he was in academia.

I thought it was a neat story, but anyways. To comment on your point. Most people rarely think about industry oppotunities when picking their field of study.

Unless the field in question is sociology. Even then the person can probably moonlight for the Discovery Channel or something ... if he is not spending too much time "blogging".

And also there is nothing I hate more than TV scientists.

like this asshat.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

But again, accomplishing meritocracy, rooting out corruption and ensuring accountability are challenges most governments fail most of the time and research might not be very different.

True meritocracy may not be possible or even desired. Consider that most people live for their children, to make a better life for their kids. Now in a true meritocracy, parents would not be able to pass on their gains to their children since everyone must start on an even footing. Not just talking about money or private property, but connections, fame and power. If George W. Bush didn't have his family, he would be homeless. So not only would you have to ban or massively tax inheritance, you would have to institute some kind of Spartan take-your-kids-away-from-biological-parents scheme which I'm sure nobody would support.

____


As for being able to predict scientific gains and advances in science not being black swans, perhaps you could increase the rate of scientific advancement if you gave a living wage to all scientists. But you could make the same claim of the economy in general; it is called cradle to grave welfare. Certainly you cannot pay scientists the same amount as an investment banker just because you think investment bankers make too much money. The same could apply to actors, doctors, or anyone who makes more than scientists. Nor is it necessary.

I wish I had bookmarked the article I read years ago, but it was an article saying how those with good grades even though they are not our leaders have a guaranteed decent life. In the end it is very hard to claim that scientists don't make enough money at 70k-100k when the average worker makes half of that, and near impossible to claim that giving them even more money would make a difference in scientific progress.

 

[oceanx]

I took a course in Drug discovery recently and one of the prof's ... did his masters on meiotic kinesins, took his research into cancer drugs ...

I have zero knowledge in the particulars of what you speak of. However, from the sound of it, your prof at least had a good run and a decent "fall back" option that many other "entrepreneurs" can never dream of.

I thought it was a neat story, but anyways. To comment on your point. Most people rarely think about industry oppotunities when picking their field of study.

The point is not to pick a path based on "expediency". But one should go into a field hopefully with eyes "wide open". I know for a fact (from my undergraduate summer research student days) that when people pick their grad projects, particularly in applied sciences and engineering, they would only have themselves to "blame" for not keeping in mind later "potentials" ...

And also there is nothing I hate more than TV scientists.

like this asshat.

Who is this guy out of curiosity? I don't have cable for the simple reason that if I keep both cable TV and internet, I'd get no work done and spend even less time with family - it's hard as it is.

 

[CardSharp]

Who is this guy out of curiosity? I don't have cable for the simple reason that if I keep both cable TV and internet, I'd get no work done and spend even less time with family - it's hard as it is.

No reason you should know him come to think of it. He's a physicist who regularly appears on a BBC science documentary called Horizon. The name is Brian Cox (not the Actor)

 

[chauism]

As for being able to predict scientific gains and advances in science not being black swans, perhaps you could increase the rate of scientific advancement if you gave a living wage to all scientists. But you could make the same claim of the economy in general; it is called cradle to grave welfare. Certainly you cannot pay scientists the same amount as an investment banker just because you think investment bankers make too much money. The same could apply to actors, doctors, or anyone who makes more than scientists. Nor is it necessary.

There is more the society can do for those who give us a better and easier life. Yes, money is not the only mean, but I think at least recognition of their name is definitely needed, and certain respect should be given to them in the society. It makes me sick that there is more people that know the name and even admire stars in sports and entertainment than those who profoundly change our way of life, and people are willing to pay more just for the brand name rather than the technological ingenuity. In USSR, the product and even the design bureaus that were often named after its inventor and founders, and scientists and engineers had certain privileges that normal citizens did not have.

I wish I had bookmarked the article I read years ago, but it was an article saying how those with good grades even though they are not our leaders have a guaranteed decent life. In the end it is very hard to claim that scientists don't make enough money at 70k-100k when the average worker makes half of that, and near impossible to claim that giving them even more money would make a difference in scientific progress.

I don't know whether it occurs to anyone that for people who choose to go into academic field of science and engineering, maybe money are not their incentive and motivation in the first place. It is their dedication to the subjects. However the incentive the government could give to them is more institutional support for their fields of research. That will be the biggest award for them, and in return it will make a difference in the scientific progress. This really need a determined government with strong political will, and not to be interfered by some ideological mumbo jumbos such as religion or whatever ism common people stupidly believes.

 

[below_freezing]

we don't need to look at the top tier of scientists and engineers vs. managers and lawyers to see the difference.

a junior lawyer makes more than a research associate.
a junior manager makes more than a chemical analyst.

a mid-career lawyer makes more than a senior engineer.
a mid-level manager gets to set the budget for the senior chemist.

and of course, the CEO manages the director of research.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Wonderful so America has more Nobel Laureates than China. Cool.



.... What do you have to do with it personally? How many Nobel prizes did you win for America.

The same number as 1.3 billion people in China in a 110 years.

 

[Hussein]

You are probably correct that all far-sighted governments of a certain size have to do that. But the problem is still where lies the shut-off valve beyond which point you got this self-perpetuating MIC where weapons have to be churned out to keep people working.

Amrika does it quite well - for now. The old Soviet Union did it reasonably well - for a time. The Third Reich did it - you be the judge how well.

But your point is otherwise well taken. Without the Cold War, there'd be no internet ... but without internet, I wouldn't be here wasting time ...

lol it's not fair . you're loosing time with us?

internet is university program i guess and it was needed communication between scientists

Germans always have a great sense of practice and theory high level mixed for the best. Einstein is just a part of all this system far before the nazis came into power.
At that time French and German were the best. And the best army. And the powerful countries, with England.

They came to USA for an heaven of ability to do research.
Never in history research could reach that intense progress. You see now the results.

Russia? they have high theory level and they are many in american universities. did you hear about Landau?
No doubt Landau was the best genius ever: he touched all the field and not like Einstein he had no doubt about quantum mechanics just the most famous scientist would be the one of the country number one

if China would be number one , then the best scientist ever would be chinese.As a friend said "the history is at the victorious side".

About IQ average i agree tottally with education importance
i know someone well that shows it is not always true:
his father is from very poor family: he got always the best grades at school but without money he entered army and never did studies. His son was not much helped too with a part of family who said that like everyone in family he should not do studies...
but he did. with 162 IQ, he just was always upset against all the teachers and people who thought he was a dreamer good for nothing.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

we don't need to look at the top tier of scientists and engineers vs. managers and lawyers to see the difference.

a junior lawyer makes more than a research associate.
a junior manager makes more than a chemical analyst.

a mid-career lawyer makes more than a senior engineer.
a mid-level manager gets to set the budget for the senior chemist.

and of course, the CEO manages the director of research.

Except a CEO, lawyer and mid-level manager are not immune to firing and totally depend on soft skills. Which may seem like an advantage, turn on the charm and get the job done, but hard skills can be trained with enough time and soft skills cannot and some would say that hard skills are easier to obtain than soft skills at certain levels.

It may take 15 to 20 years to become a research scientist. But in those 15 to 20 years if you sit in the 90th percentile, you can get scholarships with zero debt, freedom to do near whatever you want (3-6 hours of lecture a week and the rest of the time free) and eventually tenure. Meanwhile it is absolutely not guaranteed you will be the next guy to invent insulin or even a paperclip; what you write about or invent could be completely theoretical and not useful to society for hundreds of years if ever. University professors consistently rank among the lowest stress jobs with the greatest job satisfaction.

So comparing "who is the boss of who" doesn't not necessarily translate to unfairness and inequity. Most people's wives are the bosses of their men here