Testing Racket Has Ruined High School

In article <G82dnTK_B9PbyabVnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d.RemoveThis@rcn.net>,
Alan Lichtenstein <arl.RemoveThis@nospam.tld> wrote:
>Dom wrote:
>(previous post snipped-follow thread )

>> When I graduated from college in 1970, there was a huge glut of
>> mathematics, engineering and science majors. This was before pseudo-
>> educators demolished the college preparatory curriculum in the U.S.,
>> and before the AP racket was introduced. Note that Glickman is taking
>> "honors pre-calculus" in order to take AP Calculus next year. I would
>> not be surprised if she will be placed in a remedial math course in
>> college, or if she will retake Calculus and do very poorly in it.

>> In the June-July 1995 issue of the American Mathematical MONTHLY,
>> Melvin Henriksen wrote a commentary (p 482) in which he stated: "What
>> is really making it more difficult to teach college level mathematics
>> is the rush to have calculus taught in high school, ..., and at the
>> price of not teaching basic algebra and geometry."

>> Another excellent letter, by Joan Reinthaler, was published in the
>> December 1999 issue of the AMS NOTICES, "Pressure To Study Calculus in
>> High School." This is available at:

>> http://www.ams.org/notices/199911/commentary.pdf

>> The letters follow the Commentary article.

>> As long as our K-12 system of education continues to be managed by
>> pseudo-educators and by the operators of assorted testing rackets, the
>> pseudo-education of American students will continue unabated.

>Aside from your position on testing, I generally agree with you. I'm
>sure Herman would sing your praises as well. However, the lack of
>competition, IMHO, is what brought down the American educational system.
> When cooperation became more important than achievement, which began
>in earnest around the time you graduated, we started down the slippery
>slope.

>I didn't get the impression that the young lady who was taking honors
>pre-calculus would be placed in a remedial math class when she entered
>college; quite the opposite. I did get the impression that she really
>didn't want to work very hard, despite her crocodile tears. complaints,
>I would imagine you never considered when you went to school.

It is hard to tell what is going on in the high school
mathematics classes these days; it is quite possible
that the calculus and pre-calculus courses are so
designed that, while college calculus can be skipped,
algebra is not understood. Knowing how to perform
standard calculations does not give any insight.

One can learn what a derivative is; depending on the
person, it can take a few seconds, but it might take
weeks. Learning the words without insight does not
help any but the very bright; most students who have
taken the full calculus sequence do not know what it
means, but just how to calculate answers to standard
types of problems.

One of the problems with education is the assignment
of routine homework for the purpose of assigning and
grading homework. The bright student has no need of
routine problems, and the time spent on those is
completely wasted and turns off the student. But
the educationist who cannot understand also cannot
see that this is happening.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin.RemoveThis@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

In article <60np349ek46unfsnl2giasid8477p07d5e DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
toto <scarecrow DeleteThis @wicked.witch> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:10:29 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:

>>>We've had plenty of suicides for the last 50 years when we had no
>>>competition to speak of in the schools, so what you say really doesn't
>>>pan out. When they commit suicide there are far more serious factors
>>>than simply competition.

>>In Japan, it is apparently the stress of competition that lead to
>>elevated teen stress and suicide.

>When my kids were in high school in the 80s, it depended on what HS
>you went to whether or not there was excessive competition. New Trier
>HS in Wilmette had a five tier academic system of tracks. The kids in
>the upper tracks aimed for the Ivy League schools. The suicide rate
>for kids in New Trier HS were much higher than the suicide rate for
>kids in *lesser* schools.

>I subbed in the feeder elementary schools in the gifted classes and
>there were children stressing about getting into the Ivy League
>schools in 4th grade. It seems to me that this is NOT a good thing at
>all. Kids need a chance to just be kids. Overbooked, hurried
>children have health problems later on.

It might depend on the background and interest of the
kids. My son dived into the Encyclopedia Brittanica
(adult version) as soon as he learned to read and liked
to read mathematics and science. But he never was in
any way "stressed out", except by English compositions.
Also, my daughter never took an easier course if a harder
one was available.

Let kids be kids, but not as the educationists want them
to be.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin DeleteThis @stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

I just don't see how this has anything to do with the "Testing Racket."

What we are seeing here is a school where many of the parents are successful
folks who got where they are because they studied hard in high school and
got into good colleges and universities.

The parents are well aware that while they can accumulate some hard assets
for the most part if their kids want to live as well as the parents the kids
will have to do well in school.

I suspect that many of the parents of these "stressed out" kids grew up with
only a so-so background and they know that thier kids could easily end up
dropping in social class and income a notch or two.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

On Wed, 28 May 2008 10:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Pubkeybreaker
<pubkeybreaker.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 12:20 am, toto <scarec....RemoveThis@wicked.witch> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:29:17 -0700 (PDT), Dom <DR....RemoveThis@teikyopost.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> My son and daughter took Calculus in HS.  The teachers were much
>> better at teaching calculus than my college teachers were.
>
>There are HS calculus courses and then there are other HS calculus
>courses...d

Yep

>How rigorous were these courses? My HS calculus courses (yes,
>plural)
>included doing epsilon-delta proofs, proofs of the intermediate value
>and
>mean value theorems, intro to measure theory, etc. I had excellent
>teachers.
>

My son had one of the best teachers I know and had a second calculus
course that included much more that this including multivariable
calculus topics.

>Any yo-yo can teach the mechanical methods of differentiation and
>symbolic
>integration. It takes a good teacher to teach a concepts and proof
>based course.
>
Again agreed

>Then I got to college and found out what REALLY excellent teachers
>were.

I went to a small private college back in the 60s and had an
absolutely awful calculus teacher. He was a bitter man who had come
*down* to our school after teaching at Harvard (I think). He had a
degenerative physical condition that made it hard for him to write and
at the time there was no computer technology to help him. I felt
sorry for him, but I did not learn much from him. What I did learn, I
had to plough through on my own and then I took the class a second
time at another school and learned much more.

>OTOH, one does not find Gleason & Alhfors at every college.......
>
>>  I think
>> this very much depends on the particular school and the particular
>> teachers.  
>
>Absolutely!
>
> I do think that not every student should be taking
>> advanced math, but the fact is that professors who know the material
>> well are not always able to teach it well.
>
>Absolutely! I took one advanced math course as an undergrad (very
>advanced
>physics based calculus-- tensors, curvilinear coord systems, Jordan
>Curve
>theorem, integral transforms, Ham Sandwich theorem, some differential
>geometry etc.)
>Now, all the students taking this course were very strong math
>students.
>Yet 25% of the students failed.
>The professor's lectures were incomprehensible. He was the worst math
>teacher I
>ever had. I managed a B in the course, but can't really say that I
>learned it.
>From a class of 80 there was one A, two A-, about 15 in the B+ to B-
>range, and
>the rest lower. The final exam was worth 350 possible points. The
>median was about
>60. I got a B for a score of about 140. One of the grad students who
>was a TF for the
>course said that he could not have done the final exam in less than 7
>hours.
>I later found out from another professor that the prof teaching the
>course had been
>heard to say that his motive in teaching the course was to chase a lot
>of students out
>of the department because he felt they were 'unmotivated'. Let me
>tell you: at this
>school there were damn few math students who were 'unmotivated'.
>There were many
>complaints from the students to the school, backed up by the TFs.
>This professor was
>shortly thereafter relieved of all UNDERGRAD teaching
>responsibilities. They couldn't
>fire him; he had an endowed chair.
>
>OTOH, I got to take the 1st year grad course in Complex variables
>taught by Alhfors,
>and he was a truly magnificent teacher. It was an interesting course.
>Many (perhaps
>most?) of the students were undergrads. I was under-prepared for the
>course (my
>topology background was weak), but still managed an A- and I learned
>a LOT. A few of
>the other undergrads taking the course are now VERY well known (think
>Microsoft)
>
>Teachers can vary WIDELY. And a bad teacher can make even the best
>students look bad.

And good teachers can actually make poor students learn although
probably not on the level of the good students.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

On May 26, 1:59 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Alan Lichtenstein <a... DeleteThis @nospam.tld> wrote:

>
> Excessive competition IS a bad thing.  It turns off a lot of people
> who want to have more to their life than the daily grind.

One person's excess is another person's shortage.
>
> The benefits to an American for entering those fields isn't worth the
> added work needed to get there.  

Speaking as a research mathematician (with a dual undergrad degree
in molecular bio), allow me to suggest that most people who go into
science do not do so for monetary or other awards. It is a labor of
love.

>Americans are rejecting the intense
> competition (or if they are that competitive, they go into marketing
> where the money is *much* higher)
>

Yep. The instant gratification generation strikes again!


> We don't need teenagers committing suicide from competitive stress,
> like Japan has.  

Life is competitive. Think of it as evolution in action. We can give
out Darwin awards.




>
> The student is question is apparently doing so.  She's more or less
> telling the Ivy League to go screw themselves.  

I don't know why she is stressing out so much. I attended an Ivy
league
school and was not the least bit stressed out in high school. And I
was
*intensely* competitive (state/national science fairs, Olympiad
math
competition, wrestling, chess tournaments, etc.). I wasn't the least
stressed out.
I just did the best I could.


>If teenagers weren't
> being pushed so hard to overachieve, and were allowed to choose their
> own goals, we'd probably find that they are perfectly willing to
> choose lower sights.  They don't WANT to be number one.

I did. Many of my college classmates did. And I was NOT pushed.
I pushed myself. Such people do exist.

Note that I did not equate "number 1" with "make the most money"
(although a couple of my college friends did )
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 1:59 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Alan Lichtenstein <a....DeleteThis@nospam.tld> wrote:
>
>> Excessive competition IS a bad thing.  It turns off a lot of people
>> who want to have more to their life than the daily grind.
>
>One person's excess is another person's shortage.
>>
>> The benefits to an American for entering those fields isn't worth the
>> added work needed to get there.  
>
>Speaking as a research mathematician (with a dual undergrad degree
>in molecular bio), allow me to suggest that most people who go into
>science do not do so for monetary or other awards. It is a labor of
>love.

That's fine for those rich enough to afford labors of love. Most kids
these days come out of college with tens of thousands in student loans
to pay off on top of trying to support themselves. They can't afford
to labor for love.

There is much talk in these newsgroups as to why there aren't more
Americans going into science and math, and claiming that it is the
quality of preparation. I think your statement supports the more
likely economic reason - people from India and China can come here and
live what is for them a luxurious lifestyle on less money than the
typical American can live on what to an American is a frugal lifestyle
(and probably doesn't have the college debts either).

If the country relies on people choosing to a career path out of
"love", we shouldn't be surprised if we have a shortage of people with
that much love.

>>Americans are rejecting the intense
>> competition (or if they are that competitive, they go into marketing
>> where the money is *much* higher)
>
>Yep. The instant gratification generation strikes again!

Generation?

That has been endemic to teenagers and young adults since before I was
born.

>> We don't need teenagers committing suicide from competitive stress,
>> like Japan has.  
>
>Life is competitive.

It doesn't have to be.

>Think of it as evolution in action. We can give out Darwin awards.

Social Darwinism has been derided by scientists for decades.

>> The student is question is apparently doing so.  She's more or less
>> telling the Ivy League to go screw themselves.  
>
>I don't know why she is stressing out so much. I attended an Ivy
>league school

How long ago? What I've read has been that the competitiveness of the
high school process has been growing constantly.

>and was not the least bit stressed out in high school.

You are also the sort of workaholic who would get a double
undergraduate degree.

Most American kids want to have a life outside the classroom.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

On May 30, 1:50 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]

> There is much talk in these newsgroups as to why there aren't more
> Americans going into science and math, and claiming that it is the
> quality of preparation.  I think your statement supports the more
> likely economic reason - people from India and China can come here and
> live what is for them a luxurious lifestyle on less money than the
> typical American can live on what to an American is a frugal lifestyle
> (and probably doesn't have the college debts either).

The extensive pseudo-education of American students, many of whom have
taken so-called honors classes, cannot be ignored, nor can it be
understated.

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=1744266

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=1351543

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=485312

The continuing pseudo-education of American students is a national
disgrace, and it is important that people speak up!
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

Dom <DRosa.RemoveThis@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>On May 30, 1:50 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> There is much talk in these newsgroups as to why there aren't more
>> Americans going into science and math, and claiming that it is the
>> quality of preparation.  I think your statement supports the more
>> likely economic reason - people from India and China can come here and
>> live what is for them a luxurious lifestyle on less money than the
>> typical American can live on what to an American is a frugal lifestyle
>> (and probably doesn't have the college debts either).
>
>The extensive pseudo-education of American students, many of whom have
>taken so-called honors classes,

A lot more never bothered, and wouldn't bother.

>cannot be ignored

Certainly it can. You don't think anyone except the small numbers
reading this post on Usenet are paying much attention.

>The continuing pseudo-education of American students is a national
>disgrace,

There are a lot of things that are a national disgrace, and I suspect
that this one isn't among the top 100.

>and it is important that people speak up!

And it is equally important for those of us that think you have a
one-track mind and a misplaced set of priorities also speak up.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Alan Lichtenstein <arl.RemoveThis@nospam.tld> wrote:
>
>>>Because they require lower salary and benefits, and even our worst
>>>possible benefits and overdemanding employers leave them enormously
>>>better off than their countrymen that stay in the home country.
>>
>>Good rationalization with no supporting documentation. In fact, its
>>been reported many times that companies petition the Federal Government
>>to issue more, I believe the type is H2 visas simply because they CAN'T
>>fill the jobs with QUALIFIED Americans.
>
>
> Of course, that is because they have defined what is "qualified" in
> such a way as to get what they want, which is *cheaper* qualified
> workers.

More rationalizations. And of course you have EVIDENCE that the
motivation is what you claim it is and NOT that there is a paucity of
trained individuals needed to fill those jobs?

>>And Bureau of Labor statistics
>>for those high paying jobs reveal that average salaries for those jobs
>>have risen, not diminished.
>
>
> For many people, there is no amount of money that is worth an 80 hour
> workweek.

Again, more claims that go towards rationalization. And of course you
have EVIDENCE to support that claim?

> You, a frequent advocate of unions, should understand this. The
> science and engineering industries aren't unionized (and would be very
> difficult to unionize), and that means that the companies have
> enormous leverage to continually demand more of their exempt
> employees. And those who are here on a visa have even less option to
> resist.

I understand that there are plenty of people who work those weeks. Just
look at Wall Street for one example. I also understand that you have
made a claim with no supporting documentation. If your entire thesis
rests on unsupported claims, I suggest you consider revising your
beliefs accordingly.

As far as your claim that these occupations are difficult to unionize,
that is hardly the case. Teachers, nurses and in a few instances,
doctors have been unionized. Whenever one works for a large
organization, unionization is not that difficult at all. If the
individuals don't want a union, why that's another matter. But then
that's their fault, not the union's.

>>>Whereas an American can make plenty of money faster with much less
>>>work in other fields besides science, and have a life as well.
>>
>>Again, a rationalization. Bureau of Labor statistics demonstrate that
>>the Bush economic policies have done nothing but diminish the average
>>income of those working in most occupations that would fall under your
>>definition, as compared to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but the pay
>>scales for many fields of science and engineering are actually rising.
>
>
> So are the number of working hours per employee, I believe.

Your beliefs are not evidence. I think you confuse economic
productivity with increased work hours, although increased work hours
are indeed a factor in quantifying productivity.

And increased work hours are generally compensated by a little thing
called 'overtime.'

> In any event, an American could earn less and still live much better
> than the average Indian who doesn't come to the US.

Maybe. but what has that to do with the fact that industry needs those
Indians to come here because America can't or rather won't provide the
necessary labor pool?

>>>>Because we don't produce any.
>>>
>>>The benefits to an American for entering those fields isn't worth the
>>>added work needed to get there. Americans are rejecting the intense
>>>competition (or if they are that competitive, they go into marketing
>>>where the money is *much* higher)
>>
>>Hardly. A poor excuse with nothing but opinion to back it up. In fact,
>>the pay is quite good. We just don't produce the individuals we need.
>
>
> Because people don't choose those fields to study. And the reason
> that they don't is that they don't think the return on their
> investment is sufficient, or it isn't quick enough.

I disagree. and you're making excuses to support your rationalizations,
which themselves lack evidence. Back in the late 50's we had a national
initiative which promoted the need for more individuals trained in
science and technology. True, the government spending created more
jobs, but those jobs only paid what the traffic would bear. Yet we
filled the need. Now, what' you're telling us is that American youth is
lazy, self-indulgent and afraid of hard work. That's what your
rationalizations translate into. Because if you believe that there are
throngs of jobs that pay more than science and engineering, you're
deluding yourself. There aren't.

>>>>So to all those kids who are now having to make choices about either
>>>>producing something or satisfying their hedonistic and narcissistic
>>>>needs, I say good.
>>>
>>>I kinda like Obama's vision as stated in his Wesleyan U commencement
>>>address, as a 3rd choice. The fact that Obama's message is selling
>>>precisely to the kids you deride suggest that maybe you need to
>>>enlarge your vision as to the possibilities.
>>
>>I don't think much of Obama and his feel-good rhetoric with little of
>>substance to back it up, so I really don't think much of his philosophy
>>either. Obama is selling a message that you really don't have to do
>>much; you're entitled just so long as you want it.
>
>
> You apparently didn't read or hear the speech. He went to great
> length about the need for people to step up and act in the common
> interest.

I read the speech and I'm quite good at reading between the lines. I've
also been following his campaign longer than you think. I have a better
grasp of the man than most.

>>>>You'll wind up better individuals for it, and you'll
>>>>likely be the kind of individuals America needs.
>>
>>>We don't need teenagers committing suicide from competitive stress,
>>>like Japan has.
>>
>>We've had plenty of suicides for the last 50 years when we had no
>>competition to speak of in the schools, so what you say really doesn't
>>pan out. When they commit suicide there are far more serious factors
>>than simply competition.
>
>
> In Japan, it is apparently the stress of competition that lead to
> elevated teen stress and suicide.

We seem to have avoided that during earlier periods during which we had
intense competition. Besides, even still, suicide removes the
weaklings. Better for the species, as Darwin would say.

>> Or if we do, I WANT us to lose the competition, even
>>
>>>if it means we have to lower our lifestyle sights a little (which in
>>>fact we will have to do anyway due to global warming, energy
>>>shortages, etc)
>>
>>A vigorous society is not a laid back society, which is what you want.
>
>
> No. I like vigor, but I prefer the vigor to be expressed in
> cooperative and not competitive ventures, and it would be nice to
> spend some of that vigor on noncompetitive things like the arts (or
> maybe you think that only the arts that most competitively appeal to
> the largest audience should be funded?)

Your preference is antithetical to vigor. Progress is made when
technology and science advance our knowledge. Your vision would turn
our society into the Eloi of H.G. Wells' Time Machine.

>>>>You need to work hard for what you want.
>>>
>>>Yep. But they don't want what you want them to want.
>>
>>Oh, I don't think so. they want the good life just because they seem to
>>think they're entitled to it.
>
>
> Their idea of "the good life" is not yours.

so you say. I disagree. They want the life that is bought by income
that they don't want to expend the energy to earn.

>>You want proof? Just look at the sub-prime mess. All the foreclosures
>>were simply because people who couldn't really afford the houses were
>>told that they could have them with absolutely no responsibility on
>>their part.
>
>
> I don't think that they were told that. I think they were offered the
> rosy scenario of how things work when the economy goes well, and
> weren't told the fine print about what happens when things tank. Too
> many people don't read or don't understand the fine print.

Oh, please. Do you really mean to tell me that all those people really
believed that there was something like the 'free lunch?'

> And I think most of those suffering foreclosures are those of the late
> boomer generation, and not the ones just getting out of college.

Actually, most of the foreclosures were of people of lower middle and
low class socioeconomic categories. There were some upper middle and
actually wealthy individuals who lost in this mess, but their losses
were of a somewhat different nature. And it transcended all ages.

>>>The student is question is apparently doing so. She's more or less
>>>telling the Ivy League to go screw themselves.
>>
>>Good for her. But the problem is that she really doesn't want to put
>>forth the effort. You seem to gloss over that.
>
>
> She HAS been putting forth the effort. 4-5 hours of homework per night
> after a full day of school.

Fine. But her goals require more, which she is unwilling to put forth.

> I personally think that no student should be REQUIRED to put in more
> than a 40 hour week in order to succeed. If some elite universities
> want to demand such, then we need to lower the level that we call
> "success" so as to allow other options.

I think any student should be REQUIRED to put in as much time and effort
as REQUIRED by the competitive nature their goals create, and not
complain that what is required by their goals should require them to do
less.

>> If teenagers weren't
>>
>>>being pushed so hard to overachieve, and were allowed to choose their
>>>own goals, we'd probably find that they are perfectly willing to
>>>choose lower sights.
>>
>>Maybe they should.
>
>
> We agree. But their parents don't always agree. And of course not
> nearly enough teenagers will choose the competitive science and
> engineering path because the work is especially hard, and the rewards
> take longer to achieve (requiring advanced degrees in many cases).

Your statements are directly contradictory of the push for science
education after Sputnick. The only difference between those students
then and students now is that earlier students had a better work ethic,
and weren't afraid of a little hard work. This is where we disagree.
You're afraid to tell these kids that the party's over and life requires
a little hard work.

The
> case is not clearly made that a science major who drops out of the rat
> race (as I did - I did not go to grad school, and my field of
> astrophysics has negligible opportunities short of the PhD level)
> often is at a competitive advantage in the non-sciences even though
> they don't have the specific training.

You could have chosen a field where there were more opportunities. had
you done so, firms would be looking for YOU today instead of scouring
the hovels of India.

>> And there
>>
>>>isn't much America can offer them to make it worth their while, that
>>>isn't much more valued by the millions of India and China.
>>
>>Which is precisely why the Indians and Chinese have all the jobs. They
>>just want it more than our lazy self-indulgent Millenials.
>
>
> The fact that there are 8 times as many Chinese and Indians combined
> as there are Americans, means that they can have a much smaller
> percentage choosing the path, and still flood us with people. They
> also have cultures that don't promote the concept of human rights and
> liberty, which does include the right to be self-indulgent.

Maybe we should take a lesson from them. Self indulgence breeds sloth
and decay.
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

Barb Knox wrote:

> In article <1dydnSqCh_D-rabVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d RemoveThis @rcn.net>,
> Alan Lichtenstein <arl RemoveThis @nospam.tld> wrote:
>
>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Lichtenstein <arl RemoveThis @nospam.tld> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>>>>We now have to import our engineers and scientists
>>>
>>>>from places like India, Pakistan and China, who have put in
>>>
>>>>the time and energy that is needed for success. And why?
>>>
>>>Because they require lower salary and benefits, and even our worst
>>>possible benefits and overdemanding employers leave them enormously
>>>better off than their countrymen that stay in the home country.
>>
>>Good rationalization with no supporting documentation. In fact, its
>>been reported many times that companies petition the Federal Government
>>to issue more, I believe the type is H2 visas simply because they CAN'T
>>fill the jobs with QUALIFIED Americans.
>
>
> The visa category that covers most of the foreign guest-workers is H1-B.
> If an H1-B employee doesn't make waves then they are on track to get
> permanent residency. Needless to say, such employees tend to be more
> "loyal" and "flexible" than the average non-guest-worker employee, who
> is less wedded to their employer. So all else being roughly equal, an
> employer would tend to prefer hiring a guest-worker.

Thank you for the correction of the correct visa class. As far as your
other reasons, that's merely a conjecture. And even if it were true, it
still speaks nothing to the failure of American educational institutions
and societal values to produce those individuals here.

> And the "only if no qualified Americans are available" restriction is
> easily worked around by constructing the job specification to suit a
> particular desired foreign employee. There are Indian body shops that
> routinely help US employers do this.

And of course you have evidence that such is the case? If this were so,
there would be suit upon suit by unsuccessful American applicants.
There aren't. And why? Because there simply aren't enough, or in most
cases ANY American applicants.

>>And Bureau of Labor statistics
>>for those high paying jobs reveal that average salaries for those jobs
>>have risen, not diminished.
>
>
> What you say isn't false, but it rather misses the point.

No it was right on point refuting Bob's conjecture which he used to
rationalize his position.

Don't you
> think that the average salaries for for these jobs would be much higher
> in the absence a large supply of guest-workers available to help meet
> the demand?

We're not talking about illegal Mexicans with no skills packing meat in
a plant; we're talking about high level intellectuals who engage in both
original research and develop new technologies. Companies compete
fiercely for such applicants, because to be second is to be left behind.
So no, it is irrelevant that the applicant pool contains a number of
individual, because only one can be the best, and that is what companies
want. And at that level, they're willing to pay for it. Problem is,
the entire competition is foreign. A travesty.
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School 

Alan Lichtenstein <arl RemoveThis @nospam.tld> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Alan Lichtenstein <arl RemoveThis @nospam.tld> wrote:
>>
>>>>Because they require lower salary and benefits, and even our worst
>>>>possible benefits and overdemanding employers leave them enormously
>>>>better off than their countrymen that stay in the home country.
>>>
>>>Good rationalization with no supporting documentation. In fact, its
>>>been reported many times that companies petition the Federal Government
>>>to issue more, I believe the type is H2 visas simply because they CAN'T
>>>fill the jobs with QUALIFIED Americans.
>>
>> Of course, that is because they have defined what is "qualified" in
>> such a way as to get what they want, which is *cheaper* qualified
>> workers.
>
>More rationalizations. And of course you have EVIDENCE that the
>motivation is what you claim it is and NOT that there is a paucity of
>trained individuals needed to fill those jobs?

Simple. Since the number of visas is not being increased, and yet
American business isn't collapsing, apparently they are managing to
find the people they need to fill the jobs, despite the claim that
they supposedly aren't there.

Furthermore, the salaries for qualified people aren't going through
the roof, as would be expected if demand significantly exceeds supply.

>>>And Bureau of Labor statistics
>>>for those high paying jobs reveal that average salaries for those jobs
>>>have risen, not diminished.
>>
>> For many people, there is no amount of money that is worth an 80 hour
>> workweek.
>
>Again, more claims that go towards rationalization. And of course you
>have EVIDENCE to support that claim?

I KNOW many people, and I don't know *any* who would willingly work an
80 hour week, except possibly my 20 year old son, who will do so for
far less than a college graduate's salary.

>> You, a frequent advocate of unions, should understand this. The
>> science and engineering industries aren't unionized (and would be very
>> difficult to unionize), and that means that the companies have
>> enormous leverage to continually demand more of their exempt
>> employees. And those who are here on a visa have even less option to
>> resist.
>
>I understand that there are plenty of people who work those weeks.

Too many. And yet only 18% of Americans worked more than 48 hours per
week.
http://www.expertbusinesssource.com/article/CA6516841.html

>Just look at Wall Street for one example.

The pay on Wall Street is enormously higher than for scientists and
engineers.

>As far as your claim that these occupations are difficult to unionize,
>that is hardly the case. Teachers, nurses and in a few instances,
>doctors have been unionized.

Government employees can be unionized. In private industry, it isn't
happening.

>Whenever one works for a large
>organization, unionization is not that difficult at all. If the
>individuals don't want a union, why that's another matter. But then
>that's their fault, not the union's.

It may be their fault, but it is the nature of the professions that
the people who work those kinds of jobs are the sorts of
individualists who wouldn't support a union.

>>>>Whereas an American can make plenty of money faster with much less
>>>>work in other fields besides science, and have a life as well.
>>>
>>>Again, a rationalization. Bureau of Labor statistics demonstrate that
>>>the Bush economic policies have done nothing but diminish the average
>>>income of those working in most occupations that would fall under your
>>>definition, as compared to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but the pay
>>>scales for many fields of science and engineering are actually rising.
>>
>> So are the number of working hours per employee, I believe.
>
>Your beliefs are not evidence.

The cited article above noted an increase in the average workweek of
about 5 hours in just a few years,

>And increased work hours are generally compensated by a little thing
>called 'overtime.'

Not for "exempt" employees, which most professionals are (and the Bush
administration made it easier for an employer to classify someone as
exempt).

Very few programmers or engineers get paid overtime. You get the same
pay for working 80 hours as for working 40 hours, but if you work only
40 hours you get replaced. I lost my first programming job in 1975
because I wasn't sufficiently willing to work Saturdays when the boss
demanded it, even though I tended to stay later on weekdays.

A few firms offer "comp time" wherein overtime one week could enable
one to take time off at a later slack time. But management rarely
allows slack time to exist.

>> In any event, an American could earn less and still live much better
>> than the average Indian who doesn't come to the US.
>
>Maybe. but what has that to do with the fact that industry needs those
>Indians to come here because America can't or rather won't provide the
>necessary labor pool?

Except that industry doesn't really need them, since it isn't acting
like it needs them by raising salaries and benefits enough to entice
more to enter the field.

>>>Hardly. A poor excuse with nothing but opinion to back it up. In fact,
>>>the pay is quite good. We just don't produce the individuals we need.
>>
>> Because people don't choose those fields to study. And the reason
>> that they don't is that they don't think the return on their
>> investment is sufficient, or it isn't quick enough.
>
>I disagree. and you're making excuses to support your rationalizations,
>which themselves lack evidence. Back in the late 50's we had a national
>initiative which promoted the need for more individuals trained in
>science and technology. True, the government spending created more
>jobs, but those jobs only paid what the traffic would bear. Yet we
>filled the need.

Yes we did, and we are still doing so.

>Now, what' you're telling us is that American youth is
>lazy, self-indulgent and afraid of hard work.

Not quite. Unwilling to do hard work unless remunerated, and with the
short-term focus of youth, that does not mean "after graduation". Kids
can make money NOW by working 20, 30, or 40 hours a week while in high
school. Doesn't leave much time for homework though.

The percentage of kids who worked that kind of hours while in high
school was a lot lower in the 50s.

>Because if you believe that there are
>throngs of jobs that pay more than science and engineering, you're
>deluding yourself. There aren't.

I agree. But there are jobs that pay "enough" that take less time to
achieve entry level, and which also don't demand nearly as much of the
employees.

>> In Japan, it is apparently the stress of competition that lead to
>> elevated teen stress and suicide.
>
>We seem to have avoided that during earlier periods during which we had
>intense competition.

We've never had the competition levels that exist today, involving
such a high percentage of the student body. 50 years ago, only half
as many students (or less) went to college, and there were plenty of
career paths for those who did not have the competitive mindset.

>Besides, even still, suicide removes the
>weaklings. Better for the species, as Darwin would say.

Thereby lowering yourself to the level of a social Darwinist.

>> No. I like vigor, but I prefer the vigor to be expressed in
>> cooperative and not competitive ventures, and it would be nice to
>> spend some of that vigor on noncompetitive things like the arts (or
>> maybe you think that only the arts that most competitively appeal to
>> the largest audience should be funded?)
>
>Your preference is antithetical to vigor. Progress is made when
>technology and science advance our knowledge.

Progress has its disadvantages, especially when too rapid. I read
Toffler ages ago, and still remember that.

>Your vision would turn our society into the Eloi of H.G. Wells' Time Machine.

Or maybe into something more like those other developed countries
where a month's vacation is common and professionals ARE paid
overtime.

>> Their idea of "the good life" is not yours.
>
>so you say. I disagree. They want the life that is bought by income
>that they don't want to expend the energy to earn.

If they spend the energy to earn it, then they won't have the TIME to
enjoy it.

>> I don't think that they were told that. I think they were offered the
>> rosy scenario of how things work when the economy goes well, and
>> weren't told the fine print about what happens when things tank. Too
>> many people don't read or don't understand the fine print.
>
>Oh, please. Do you really mean to tell me that all those people really
>believed that there was something like the 'free lunch?'

Yep. Or rather they presumed that the loan payments were sufficiently
NOT a free lunch.

>> And I think most of those suffering foreclosures are those of the late
>> boomer generation, and not the ones just getting out of college.
>
>Actually, most of the foreclosures were of people of lower middle and
>low class socioeconomic categories.

Such people couldn't afford house payments.

>> I personally think that no student should be REQUIRED to put in more
>> than a 40 hour week in order to succeed. If some elite universities
>> want to demand such, then we need to lower the level that we call
>> "success" so as to allow other options.
>
>I think any student should be REQUIRED to put in as much time and effort
>as REQUIRED by the competitive nature their goals create,

Then you shouldn't be surprised when "too few" Americans are willing
to adopt the goal you want them to adopt - i.e. to be employable in
the degreed technical professions.

>>>Maybe they should.
>>
>> We agree. But their parents don't always agree. And of course not
>> nearly enough teenagers will choose the competitive science and
>> engineering path because the work is especially hard, and the rewards
>> take longer to achieve (requiring advanced degrees in many cases).
>
>Your statements are directly contradictory of the push for science
>education after Sputnick. The only difference between those students
>then and students now is that earlier students had a better work ethic,
>and weren't afraid of a little hard work.

Bullshit. The "push for science education" in those days wasn't
nearly as demanding as it is now.

>This is where we disagree.
>You're afraid to tell these kids that the party's over and life requires
>a little hard work.

My daughter dropped out of college within a year and went to work. She
works plenty hard (and then plays plenty hard). She might have made
more as an engineer (a laughable thought, since my daughter's math
skills are abysmal), but she is making money NOW, whereas if she had
stayed in college, she would still be racking up college debt at $20K
per year.

> The
>> case is not clearly made that a science major who drops out of the rat
>> race (as I did - I did not go to grad school, and my field of
>> astrophysics has negligible opportunities short of the PhD level)
>> often is at a competitive advantage in the non-sciences even though
>> they don't have the specific training.
>
>You could have chosen a field where there were more opportunities.

I did. I went into programming. A field where I didn't really need
the degree that I had, though it probably helped get me in the door.

>had
>you done so, firms would be looking for YOU today instead of scouring
>the hovels of India.

I haven't gone back to work since the kids were grown. It isn't clear
that I will do so. The tradeoff is some added income for retirement
vs a higher stress level that might mean that I don't live until
retirement.

>> The fact that there are 8 times as many Chinese and Indians combined
>> as there are Americans, means that they can have a much smaller
>> percentage choosing the path, and still flood us with people. They
>> also have cultures that don't promote the concept of human rights and
>> liberty, which does include the right to be self-indulgent.
>
>Maybe we should take a lesson from them. Self indulgence breeds sloth
>and decay.

And human rights and liberty

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Testing Racket Has Ruined High School