« School Choice: The Findings | Main | Carmen Laforet »
America fact of the day
America has 62 percent of the world's [scientist] stars as residents, primarily because of its research universities which produce them.
Here is the paper, and, addended, here are non-gated versions.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 30, 2007 at 10:28 AM in Science | Permalink
Comments
The link seems to be broken. :-)
Posted by: Urbano at Oct 30, 2007 11:05:16 AM
Can think of many reasons why "star scientists" might live in the US and access to research facilities is but one. But the question for me is really whether tomorrow's stars live here in great preponderance. Or whether scientific advances, and the economic growth these drive, have any correlation to scientific stardom beyond the headlines.
Cannot access the paper so I can't say if it addresses these questions.
Posted by: Martin at Oct 30, 2007 11:12:53 AM
The link works, though it only goes to the abstract of the paper. $5 for the whole paper :(
Posted by: Chloe at Oct 30, 2007 11:19:13 AM
It's probably also worth mentioning that US universities tend to have a lot more money to throw at stars. Even for your average garden-variety academic, US universities tend to pay a lot better.
Posted by: Ben Webster at Oct 30, 2007 12:07:34 PM
Some of these "scientist stars"deserted their own native countries and migrated to the US in search of money and fame.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 30, 2007 12:36:20 PM
Some of these "scientist stars"deserted their own native countries and migrated to the US in search of money and fame.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 30, 2007 12:37:40 PM
"It's probably also worth mentioning that US universities tend to have a lot more money to throw at stars."
The universities have a lot of US taxpayer money given the unbelievable subsidies that they receive.
Posted by: RTS at Oct 30, 2007 1:52:52 PM
European Universities also recieve "unbelievable subsidies", the absolute majority is even totally state run.
I think it comes down to the philosophy of what the goal of high level education should be. I get the feeling that the American view is that society need high level education to lead the way to a better world through frontier scientific research, i.e. the university system is a means to an end. Left wing and right wing pundits may argue over whether the proper levels of public/private ownership but there is still this rational view of the purpose.
I get the feeling that in Europe we have a view on the unviersity system that is influenced much more by the insistance that access to higher education is a 'right'. Everybody should have higher education, whether it is beneficial to society as a whole does not enter the equation. I recently listened to a podcast with Brad DeLong, that is usually considered to be left-center in the US. He made the case for public university education on the grounds that 'we, the taxpayers, think that some of you will do some really great things, and it will benefit all of us' (paraphrasing). That approach would be considered radical in Sweden at least. You have a right to higher education, it doesn't matter if it benefits society or not.
The first philosophy tends to reward frontier research and the very best researchers in every field. The second tends to reward a broader base. If you are an average student, you probably prefer the European system. If you are a genious, you should try to get to America because here you have much less resources to grow.
This is NOT the case just for the natural sciences, but especially for the social sciences. Every social science textbook here is American. Almost every new methodology and approach was concieved in America and then spread here.
Posted by: Erik at Oct 30, 2007 3:46:07 PM
It's not only for the search of "fame and money" scientists are going to the U.S.
I mean, money yes but not necesseraly for their salary.
In France I witnessed some research centers (state funded), that were so poor that searchers took on themselves to get funds from their own donation to...repaint the walls!
I could see how frustrating it is to not be able to practice my job because no fund is available...If someone(US universities) is offering to those researchers money to keep on working in more than decent, or optimized conditions, I don't see why they wouldn't.
Posted by: cristele at Oct 30, 2007 4:56:06 PM
Yes, our mixed system of using both public and private money to support our university system really works really well -- much like our mixed economy seems to work very well.
Posted by: spencer at Oct 30, 2007 5:15:52 PM
America's star scientists must once have been largely imports. When did the balance swing to home-growns? 60s?
Posted by: dearieme at Oct 30, 2007 6:40:52 PM
to Spencer: I wouldn't go that far :-) I could see a lot arguments why it's NOT working very well. For example this recent poll showing the increasing cost of fees universities that stops ppl from buying a house after their studies, because their school loans are too high; some economists fear that in a long term this will jeopardize an important part of the economy -real estate- already taken down by the high risks-loans - this summer's crash-...they fear there wont be as much low-risk loans of stable new incomes because those candidates can't afford to buy, because of education.
Posted by: cristele at Oct 30, 2007 6:51:23 PM
cristele,
Don't cry for the college graduates, they are the cream of society's crop. If their education was "free", i.e. paid for by taxpayers (there's no such thing as a free education), that effectively meant the poor subsidized the future rich. At least that's the way it happens in Europe with your VAT's.
Also, only the BMW majors (black studies, Marxist studies, women's studies) and their unproductive ilk need worry about being strapped and unable to pay back their student loans. Those who majored in the logic professions such as math, science, technology etc. will do just fine, more than fine actually, and that is how it ought to be, the more productive majors pay the most.
It is also worth noting that all the best colleges in the US are needs blind, which is another way of saying the poor get in free and the rich pay through the nose. I fail to see the economic logic of the low IQ half of society subsidizing the higher IQ side of middle class the way Europe does.
Finally, home ownership in the is radically higher in the US that in Europe, and is in fact essentially at an all time high, although the subprime meltdown will likely change that. The notion that if the US adopted European funding mechanisms that we'd have higher home ownership rates seems radically at odds with the empirical evidence.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Oct 30, 2007 9:32:34 PM
Where the 62% came from ?
Cant find the data in the paper related to the 62%.
Posted by: David at Oct 30, 2007 10:13:39 PM
Tyler's quote is "primarily because of its research universities"
Isn't it more likely to be "primarily" driven by the opportunities for star scientists to create profits for firms here?
Posted by: indiana jim at Oct 31, 2007 9:54:45 AM
Tyler - and other economists - consistently argue that subsidies - especially farm subsidies - are bad. They misallocate resources and lead to a worse outcome than a world without subsidies. The arguement seems to be subsidies are really bad ... except for when they positively impact my salary. You've got to explain why the market for a college education deserves subsidies while the market for milk does not. What's different about the markets that the education market "should" have subsidies and the milk market should not?
Posted by: RTS at Oct 31, 2007 2:40:18 PM
happyjuggler:
That's what I read: new Lawyers and new doctors couldnt afford their housing right away. because of their students loan. It doesnt mean eventually they'll never pay off their loan and be able to buy, it means they push it off for later. My point was more about the economy having to restructure if ppl who usually buy, say, 5 yrs after finishing their studies would buy 10 yrs after instead (making up numbers here to show my points).
By no mean I was trying to prove European systems were better, because the structure lacks of money and I've never seen any study that would show ppl have comparatively more diplomae in countries where universities are "free" vs not. So I won't go there.
I think studies in Europe and US have 2 different approaches: in the US they are more "pragmatic" and European are more "conceptual". I could see good points for both systems, but in todays' world economy, US approach is proving best results.
Posted by: cristele at Oct 31, 2007 2:56:00 PM
There are many reasons for why 62 percent of the world's best scientists live in America. First they have more facilities of obtaining research resources. Moreover, America seems to have a great interest in the science field. Due to this fact they put more effort and more attention to the needs of scientists. In America star scientist can find more financial help.
Posted by: cm at Nov 4, 2007 6:53:07 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now,is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Bob at Mar 14, 2008 12:50:09 AM
