[arghnoname]

I always feel there's some implicit racism or belief in cultural superiority or something at play in these discussions. Anyone who has gone to grad school can see pretty plainly that the top schools are stuffed with Chinese and Indian nationals. They're capable and they work hard. Some of them, not a small number, go back home. Further, western industry set up shop in Asia for their own reasons and brought their expertise over.

The west had a lead, but 'we' trained Asians at our top institutions and worked closely with Asian manufacturers so that they can make our most sophisticated products more cheaply. There are a lot more people in Asia, and high relative poverty and cultural practices encourage a higher degree of scholastic achievement. Of course they're beating us now.

Outside of a very explicit and intense effort to develop domestic talent and retain foreign talent (or bloody wars), the west probably won't ever really lead ever again. This was the obvious outcome decades ago, but these things take time. The gap will grow and will extend up the value chain--western nations will do protectionism to try to slow this (e.g., Huawei, current chip restrictions), but cat's out of the bag.

I don't think it's a good or a bad thing from a global perspective. It just is. The great power competition that may result, wars, etc, is a very bad thing. The US in particular should compete as best it can, but it's best for everyone if we learn to live in a multipolar world.

[mr_toad]

> Anyone who has gone to grad school can see pretty plainly that the top schools are stuffed with Chinese and Indian nationals. They're capable and they work hard.

People in grad school tend to be hard working and smart, that’s how they got there. Hypothesis: foreign nationals have to be even smarter and harder-working to secure places in US universities, hence the stereotype.

[arghnoname]

It wasn't my experience that they were harder working or more capable than the domestic talent. Because of the immigration benefits, some had additional motivations native-born Americans didn't have, but there are easier ways to immigrate. There were some differences culturally in how certain things were approached, but I thought capability wise there was not an obvious and significant disparity in terms of capability of students by national origin.

What was noticeable is that there were a lot of these students and to the extent that the US does not retain them, we are training the workforce of our competitors. To the extent we do retain them, we are poaching the talent of our competitors. My guess is this is tough to balance and where we're at now is making total global innovation higher but lowering the proportion of the pie over which the US has dominion.