[jmcgough]

It's really not about this - it's that for decades we've been able to draw top global talent to the US. We've cut research funding so heavy that we can't even support post docs who are American citizens now. My friends are going to Europe, Canada, Hong Kong.

[rayiner]

How important can that be? America’s only real competitor technologically is China. And they’ve had essentially no immigration of “top talent.”

[notatoad]

>America’s only real competitor technologically is China

this is a very shortsighted view. america's only real competitor technologically right now is china, because america has typically attracted the top talent from everywhere else.

if america is no longer capable of attracting top talent from everywhere else in the world, and other countries can start attracting american talent, it won't be long before america has a whole lot of real competitors.

[jmcgough]

Ask this again in 40 years. The people we're losing are early career researchers, so this is really a generational loss of talent that we've created. Brain drains can become self-perpetuating once they start.

[wongarsu]

Germany was in almost this exact situation. It was a self-perpetuating machine for centuries, where ambitious students came to study under the best professors, leading to top students, many of which stayed at those universities to become top professors themselves. Then WW1 put a bit of a damper on that, and the 1930s and 1940s broke it. Germany is still not insignificant in science, but really a shadow of its former self

And that was despite putting an emphasis on education, and the 1930s and 1940s having a lot of science funding. Remove the people and the flywheel stops

[dboreham]

China has 3X more people, and America has a relatively terrible education system, so they have to import talented people who were educated elsewhere.

[rayiner]

America has a very good education system against the backdrop of challenging sociological factors and mass low-skill immigration. In the PISA exam, white American kids outperform kids in Hong Kong and Korea, as well as western european kids of non-immigrant ancestry.

The American education system has major and important challenges, such as how to educate the large share of kids whose parents are economic migrants from non-English speaking countries. But those challenges aren’t relevant to the question of whether the U.S. can produce sufficient highly educated people domestically. China, meanwhile, doesn’t even participate in PISA outside four wealthy provinces.

[disgruntledphd2]

> against the backdrop of challenging sociological factors and mass low-skill immigration

I'm pretty sure that poverty is the issue here. Kids who don't get enough to eat, don't get enough time (or perhaps too much time in some sad cases) with their parents, kids who don't have many opportunities tend to do worse at standardised testing.

This is entirely fixable, but it's not (unfortunately) just a matter of funding schools more.

[rayiner]

“Poverty” might be the cause, but it’s not just poverty by itself. Every country has rich people and poor people. The U.S., however, has that normal spectrum, plus subpopulations that have unique circumstances that aren't accounted for just by income level.

Look at NAEP scores: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/some-racial... (Table 1). Asians average 312 in 8th grade math, compared to 293 for whites and 269 for Hispanics. The gap between asians and whites is almost the same size as the gap between whites and hispanics. But the poverty metrics for asians and whites is the same: 8% below the federal poverty line. (While asians are richer than whites on average, the subset of both groups who have kids is more similar. There’s a lot of high poverty asian families in places like NYC.)

Why is there such a big gap in test scores between whites and asians when economically the two groups are similar? There must be some additional sociological factor at play behind poverty in and of itself. One might hypothesize that selective immigration plays a role. The majority of the U.S. asian population is foreign born, and is in the U.S. as a result of skilled immigration. That might have an effect on their kids test scores that’s not accounted for by household income alone. That’s the kind of additional sociological factor that countries like Japan and Korea don’t have.

[disgruntledphd2]

> Why is there such a big gap in test scores between whites and asians when economically the two groups are similar? There must be some additional sociological factor at play behind poverty in and of itself. One might hypothesize that selective immigration plays a role. The majority of the U.S. asian population is foreign born, and is in the U.S. as a result of skilled immigration. That might have an effect on their kids test scores that’s not accounted for by household income alone. That’s the kind of additional sociological factor that countries like Japan and Korea don’t have.

OK, So I've just actually read your fordham institute link, and you realise that it doesn't argue for this point, instead arguing that it's two parent households and expectations around college that create the gap (which is pretty small, to be fair). This is basically the point that I'm trying to make here, in that parental and broader cultural expectations drive these differences, not selective immigration.

Additionally, for your point to be true, you'd need to observe these kinds of effects for 3-4th generation Asian immigrants, which both seems pretty unlikely to me and difficult to collect data around (as there probably aren't enough Asian americans in this group).

I really think that cultural expectations and poverty provide a more parsimonious account of this data, tbh.

> The majority of the U.S. asian population is foreign born, and is in the U.S. as a result of skilled immigration.

On this point specifically, the percentage for ESL (which normally correlates with 1st generation immigrants) is about 12, which means 88% of the Asians in your sample speak English natively. Again, this article really doesn't support your point.

[disgruntledphd2]

> “Poverty” might be the cause, but it’s not just poverty by itself. Every country has rich people and poor people. The U.S., however, has that normal spectrum, plus subpopulations that have unique circumstances that aren't accounted for just by income level.

Culture is a thing, as I'm sure you know (we discussed it some time ago here). Like, in general, (many) Irish people value education above and beyond what would be expected of similar socio-economic groups, which lead to their descendants doing better than might naively be expected. The Asian thing is almost certainly similar, given all the memes that exist around demanding Asian parents. Jewish people have similar cultural beliefs.

However, you can't really aggregate up to an White level, as these factors will vary massively. Same with Asians, you'd need to control for a lot of factors.

Fundamentally though, it's better for society if everyone gets a chance to develop their potential, and my argument is that this doesn't happen to the same extent in the US as it might elsewhere, because of large gaps in income inequality and social forcing functions (if everyone you know drops out of school early, or doesn't take it seriously then most people will too).

> “Poverty” might be the cause, but it’s not just poverty by itself. Every country has rich people and poor people. The U.S., however, has that normal spectrum, plus subpopulations that have unique circumstances that aren't accounted for just by income level.

I get that you're more familar with US society, but this is a thing basically everywhere. Like, African descendants in the UK are probably one of the most successful immigrant populations, rather than less succesful than the average in the US. I honestly think that the US "unique circumstances" are cope for the lack of decent income mobility and social safety nets that prevent a larger proportion of people from realising their potential.

[gregorygoc]

> In the PISA exam, white American kids outperform kids in Hong Kong and Korea, as well as western european kids of non-immigrant ancestry.

Translation: rich kids have better access to top education in America. Got it.

[rayiner]

White people in the U.S. aren’t just the “rich” subset of the whole population. They are reflect a complete spectrum, from poor to rich. They’re equivalent to Koreans in Korea or Japanese in Japan. Other groups in the U.S. aren’t just economically different, they’re sociologically different in dimensions that don’t really exist in Korea or Japan.

For example, 71% of hispanics speak Spanish at home. That reflects a group that’s comprised mostly of immigrants and their children. That poses additional challenges to education, beyond the economic differences. Poor whites in the U.S. and poor Koreans in Korea may have educational challenges from being poor. But that poverty isn’t layered with being raised in a household with immigrant parents who are in an unfamiliar country and probably don’t speak English fluently. That’s an additional layer of challenges that needs to be accounted for in comparing across countries.

[lugu]

You are wrong at so many levels. Your argument is factually incorrect and logically flawed. And you know it.

[rayiner]

The facts are in the PISA data collected by the OECD. If you drill down by subpopulation, the majority group in the U.S. goes toe to toe with the majority groups in Asian countries, and beats the majority groups in western european countries: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....

National competitiveness and distributional equity don’t go hand in hand. China has made tremendous achievements by focusing investment on key provinces instead of trying to bring everyone up together.

[chaostheory]

Maybe you should actually prove him wrong. Making a claim without evidence doesn’t help anyone.

[HarryHirsch]

They imported top graduate student talent that went to the us and might have wished to stay but could not or wouldn't put up with the H1-B indentured servitude or was better paid back home or just patriotic.

Also - less financialization. In US, a statistician goes to work for any 3-letter agency or high finance. In a less financialized economy they might devote themselves to crystallography instead.