How to raise the next Columbine shooter

[GGT]

Q: What's the "traditional" way of raising "successful" children in India? Same techniques as the Chinese Tiger Mother, or something different?

They obviously end up valuing education and moving up the employment (and social) ladders just as much as the Chinese. They value math and science, producing scientists, engineers, and physicians.

I don't recall articles, books or stories of how Indian parents make their kids forego sleep-overs or team sports, let alone sitting at the piano (holding their urine) or threatening to burn stuffed animals. I'm not aware of any cultural tradition aimed at shaming or guilting their kids into academic excellence. Yet, they succeed.

What's different between the Chinese and the Indian parenting models?

[Khendraja'aro]

I think both this and some other results are somewhat undermined by the fact that the highest college wage premium goes to people with specific knowledge sets, not those who have scored well on some critical thinking test;

I'd like to point out that without the ability to critically think, you won't get very far in your chosen fields.

Mathematics, for instance, is NOT something you can simply learn by rote. Simple algebra, yes. Simple calculus, yes.

Then take a dive into the realm of, say, stochastic and tell me how far you'll get as soon as you leave the area of textbook examples.

Do you speak about David Brooks? Have you read the same article as I have?

Yes. And he is confused. Again, he's talking about "cognitive demand" and trying to tell us that social events place a higher cognitive demand on someone than, say, solving math riddles.

That's not what the word means.

[Loki]

Actually, I think an argument could be made that foreign-language speaking engineer students have a huge incentive to learn at least quasi-effective communication skills in English, and we both know that the majority of hard science grad students in the US are Asiatic types willing to work their asses off for slave wages.

They have an incentive to learn passable English. The "wages" are far from slave wages too; they get about 50% more in stipends than social science grad students (who get at least a quarter more than humanities, at least in this college).

[wiggin]

Or it suggests that people aren't stupid and do specialized degrees in fields in which there are currently high demand. That doesn't mean that such demand will persist into the future (just think computer scientists a decade back).

Computer scientists are still very much in demand. It's not as sexy a job as it used to be, but the pay is good and demand is high. I'm not sure why you disagree here; yes, specific STEM disciplines are more susceptible to market variations than others (petroleum engineering and ChemE come to mind; jobs there are tightly linked to oil prices), but most of them have had persistently high demand for a very long time. More broadly, most of these degrees allow for a lot of flexibility, where a poorly performing industry can be dropped in favor of a growing one. Just look at all of the mechanical engineers who now work in the healthcare industry making devices and the like, or all of the former aerospace engineers who reclassified themselves after defense spending dropped in the 90s.

I agree about being sought out to do quantitative analysis, but I'm fairly sure that the reason they're in such high demand in consulting and MBA programs is because so few apply. A consulting company needs people who specialize in the same area as their clients, and that means that a consulting company without engineers would be at a handicap helping those kind of companies. The fact that engineers are in such high demand says more about the quantity supplied than about their inherent worth.

Your first sentence is patently false. One of the biggest recruiters and employers for new engineer bachelors is the consulting industry; additionally, a large percentage of incoming MBA students have an engineering background (I've seen numbers ranging from 25% to over 70% depending on the country); furthermore, 22% of S&P 500 CEOs have engineering backgrounds.

I'd like to know how much non-specialized jobs today don't require a high proficiency in A) writing, B) reading, and C) speaking. You learn none of those skills in a field like engineering (I won't mention communication, because I think there's a selection effect in terms of the kind of people who go into math/engineering/hard sciences). I do accept that a very good engineer would have strong critical thinking skills, as he'd be applying the rigorous standards of his field to the area he's working in. I'm not convinced an average engineer would have that ability, however.

True, writing and speaking are important (I'm surprised you think reading isn't covered in engineering; sure, reading a history thesis or a piece of literature might not be covered in an engineering curriculum, but reading and quickly assimilating information most definitely is), and some engineering programs don't adequately cover that. Ditto for teamwork. This is something schools realize and spend more time emphasizing these skills (particularly presentation skills and design proposals, along with working and communicating in teams). That being said, my objection to the Free Exchange piece I posted was that the test seemed to give higher scores to students who took classes that had a lot of 'traditional' reading and writing assignments (e.g. a higher level history/literature/social science course) rather than classes that still cover those skills but without some arbitrary rubric. Thus, arguing that this measure of 'critical thinking' or whatever was indicative of something employers wanted was largely silly.

The fact of the matter is that engineers are very much in demand and have been for decades, despite a relative lack of specific training in these vaguely defined 'social' skills - and their appeal goes far beyond simple technical subjects. This means that success in the job market is to a large extent predicated on specific knowledge and problem solving skills, though of course other factors are also very important. Ignoring this when we design our education system in favor of some vague 'critical thinking' or 'communication' curriculum would be stupid.

I'd like to point out that without the ability to critically think, you won't get very far in your chosen fields.

Mathematics, for instance, is NOT something you can simply learn by rote. Simple algebra, yes. Simple calculus, yes.

Then take a dive into the realm of, say, stochastic and tell me how far you'll get as soon as you leave the area of textbook examples.

Of course; I think that the test in my quoted piece wasn't actually a measure of critical thinking, or if it was, it neglected the forms of critical thinking that are actually useful in the workplace. Thus, a test favoring those who spend their time writing papers might be measuring something but it sure as hell isn't actual critical thinking (whatever that means).

[Nessus]

They have an incentive to learn passable English. The "wages" are far from slave wages too; they get about 50% more in stipends than social science grad students (who get at least a quarter more than humanities, at least in this college).

But no one needs humanities grad students

(Hard sciences grad students make arguably very little and the reason Asiatic types are so over-represented is that the highest-ranked, Ivy League schools quite literally work people to their breaking point, Asiatic students tend to last the three years whereas caucasians burn out faster)

[Loki]

But no one needs humanities grad students

(Hard sciences grad students make arguably very little and the reason Asiatic types are so over-represented is that the highest-ranked, Ivy League schools quite literally work people to their breaking point, Asiatic students tend to last the three years whereas caucasians burn out faster)

They might be overworked, but at least in the college here, the average stipend for a hard science grad student is about $30k. By contrast, social science grad students get $15-20k, and humanities grad students get $12-15k. Hard science grad students also have many more sources of funding than does everyone else.

[Nessus]

I honestly mean no offence, but on average their research does benefit society more. I mean, Hell's bells, given that ostensibly it's a free market (more or less) that decides who gets what, doesn't that mean the money's going to the right place? Invisible infallible hand and all that?

[Loki]

I honestly mean no offence, but on average their research does benefit society more. I mean, Hell's bells, given that ostensibly it's a free market (more or less) that decides who gets what, doesn't that mean the money's going to the right place? Invisible infallible hand and all that?

I accept that, and have no problem with them making more. I was addressing your point about them being used as slave labor. If the predominanetly Asian grad students in the hard sciences are slave labour when they make $30k, what exactly do you call the predominantly white students (and by predominantly, I mean almost all if you exclude such great fields as African-American studies and Latin American studies) in the humanities?

[Nessus]

I accept that, and have no problem with them making more. I was addressing your point about them being used as slave labor. If the predominanetly Asian grad students in the hard sciences are slave labour when they make $30k, what exactly do you call the predominantly white students (and by predominantly, I mean almost all if you exclude such great fields as African-American studies and Latin American studies) in the humanities?

Stupid? Or true believers, people doing what they love for the reward of doing it, so on? The invisible infallible hand tends to favour frivolous, stupid shit because that's what society wants. You can't expect to get rich and powerful studying dead languages, or exotic particles or whatever.

[wiggin]

But no one needs humanities grad students

(Hard sciences grad students make arguably very little and the reason Asiatic types are so over-represented is that the highest-ranked, Ivy League schools quite literally work people to their breaking point, Asiatic students tend to last the three years whereas caucasians burn out faster)

Three years? Three years?!

[Loki]

My point is by what criteria do you consider them slave labor? They're getting paid $30k while getting a free graduate education. This is roughly equivalent to med school students, who get paid a bit more for the residency, but have to pay a ridiculous amount of money before they get to that point.

[Nessus]

Three years? Three years?!

I'm unsure what you're objecting to. The average PhD takes four years here and apparently we're slow globally speaking.

My point is by what criteria do you consider them slave labor? They're getting paid $30k while getting a free graduate education. This is roughly equivalent to med school students, who get paid a bit more for the residency, but have to pay a ridiculous amount of money before they get to that point.

I am very willing to agree that I used hyperbole and the term was unwarranted. It just seems a bit unfair to work people to their breaking point, but that's an argument the invisible infallible hand doesn't like.

[Loki]

I am very willing to agree that I used hyperbole and the term was unwarranted. It just seems a bit unfair to work people to their breaking point, but that's an argument the invisible infallible hand doesn't like.

I'm not quite sure how you're bringing the market into this. It seems far closer to the medieval apprenticeship system to me.

[wiggin]

I'm unsure what you're objecting to. The average PhD takes four years here and apparently we're slow globally speaking.

Not in the US for hard sciences/engineering it doesn't. US PhDs are very different from the rest of the world; average in life sciences is almost 8 years, physics is ~7.5, chemistry is just under 7. I think engineers are a little shorter (couldn't find the data), but it's still way longer than four years.

[Nessus]

I'm not quite sure how you're bringing the market into this. It seems far closer to the medieval apprenticeship system to me.

That'd be the ideal, but as you pointed out, the market pays more for that which at least theoretically has more potential for making smaller iPods, and for the least expense, hence working people until they drop. Right? I'm certainly not arguing people weren't worked to death under different economic systems than free market capitalism, I'm just saying that free market capitalism isn't averse to the practice either. I hear the Russian people had big opinions on that front about a hundred years ago.

[Loki]

That's because American colleges spend the first two years making up for a horrible high school education, which means American students are constantly two years behind. There's also more of an emphasis on independent learning in Europe.

[Nessus]

Not in the US for hard sciences/engineering it doesn't. US PhDs are very different from the rest of the world; average in life sciences is almost 8 years, physics is ~7.5, chemistry is just under 7. I think engineers are a little shorter (couldn't find the data), but it's still way longer than four years.

Wait, you spend 8 years after your master's to do a phD? You're 40 when you graduate? How old are your professors?

[wiggin]

Wait, you spend 8 years after your master's to do a phD? You're 40 when you graduate? How old are your professors?

Many science and engineering PhD programs will take people without a Master's degree, which speeds things up a bit on a life perspective (though many require a Master's, and some people only choose to get a PhD after completing a Master's). Also, they tend to have one to two years of additional classes along with research and teaching, which slows things down some compared to most European PhDs. It is not uncommon to have PhDs graduate in their early 30s, though I'd say late 20s is more common for those who came straight from undergrad. Throw in postdocs, and many don't get a tenure track position until late 30s or early 40s. Obviously the hotshots are a bit faster, but that's the exception, not the rule.

I'm surprised you didn't know this; the American PhD is a very different animal.

[Loki]

That'd be the ideal, but as you pointed out, the market pays more for that which at least theoretically has more potential for making smaller iPods, and for the least expense, hence working people until they drop. Right? I'm certainly not arguing people weren't worked to death under different economic systems than free market capitalism, I'm just saying that free market capitalism isn't averse to the practice either. I hear the Russian people had big opinions on that front about a hundred years ago.

The university system is to a large extent protected from market pressures. The only reason numerous academic departments even exist is because colleges force undergrads to take classes in those departments (I know that's the only reason the hard sciences existed in my business-oriented undergrad college). The only thing you can attribute to the market here is the higher stipends for hard science grad students (then again, part of the reason for that is higher government funding of those fields). The "slave labor" component is a remnant of the feudal guild system. Do you really think that a real free market system would create the same kind of university system as we have now (including tenure, every subject taught in every college, disciplines that few undergrad major in, etc.)?

[Nessus]

Many science and engineering PhD programs will take people without a Master's degree, which speeds things up a bit on a life perspective (though many require a Master's, and some people only choose to get a PhD after completing a Master's). Also, they tend to have one to two years of additional classes along with research and teaching, which slows things down some compared to most European PhDs. It is not uncommon to have PhDs graduate in their early 30s, though I'd say late 20s is more common for those who came straight from undergrad. Throw in postdocs, and many don't get a tenure track position until late 30s or early 40s. Obviously the hotshots are a bit faster, but that's the exception, not the rule.

I'm surprised you didn't know this; the American PhD is a very different animal.

Why would I know about US phDs? Aside from working with a few US-born post-docs, that is. The average age of attaining a physics phD in our university is 30-31, and the rest tend to get theirs after 30 rather than before. And tenure track? You got it sweet over there, let me tell you.

The university system is to a large extent protected from market pressures. The only reason numerous academic departments even exist is because colleges force undergrads to take classes in those departments (I know that's the only reason the hard sciences existed in my business-oriented undergrad college). The only thing you can attribute to the market here is the higher stipends for hard science grad students (then again, part of the reason for that is higher government funding of those fields). The "slave labor" component is a remnant of the feudal guild system. Do you really think that a real free market system would create the same kind of university system as we have now (including tenure, every subject taught in every college, disciplines that few undergrad major in, etc.)?

No, probably not. But, for instance, I have never had to take a single humanities course, the only things I have studied in a university were physics, astronomy and math. Conversely, I would not expect a free market society to create a university system where people weren't worked to death.

[Loki]

No, probably not. But, for instance, I have never had to take a single humanities course, the only things I have studied in a university were physics, astronomy and math. Conversely, I would not expect a free market society to create a university system where people weren't worked to death.

If demand for a certain type of student was high, what makes you think the latter wouldn't be able to leverage that into fewer working hours and a higher stipend?

[Nessus]

If demand for a certain type of student was high, what makes you think the latter wouldn't be able to leverage that into fewer working hours and a higher stipend?

They'd still be after a degree; a grad student has very little options when they disagree with their prof, because there's always going to be 20 undergrads available who could do a roughly comparable performance to yours. This doesn't apply to the super special cases, but they'd probably get funded by the university itself if nothing else in the free market university system; they're good PR for the establishment!

If phD workers go on strike, who are they hurting? The people funding them, or themselves?

[Loki]

They'd still be after a degree; a grad student has very little options when they disagree with their prof, because there's always going to be 20 undergrads available who could do a roughly comparable performance to yours. This doesn't apply to the super special cases, but they'd probably get funded by the university itself if nothing else in the free market university system; they're good PR for the establishment!

If phD workers go on strike, who are they hurting? The people funding them, or themselves?

And there's only one university providing that degree?

If they go on strike, they're hurting the university. A) The professors won't be able to get as much work done, and B) undergrads won't have TAs.

[Nessus]

There's no ranking lists for how valuable each university is for providing degrees?

[Loki]

There's no ranking lists for how valuable each university is for providing degrees?

Eh? There are several rankings of graduate departments...And the reputation of a department affects the kind of students they get, which in turn affects the kind of professors/professionals they create, which affects the reputation of the department.

[Nessus]

Again, I would argue that the supply of potential PhD workers is greater than the demand, even for TA shit.

And surely you did some analysis on the university you chose for your phD? I'm in the best university in the nation, with the best connections to the best facilities in Europe (and the US, even), and I'm working with famous people who publish in tabloids on a regular basis. Which should I do, fight with my prof if we disagree, or move to a smaller university to get some throw-away phD?

[rumrunner]

You're completely failing to understand what I am getting at, which is that you are not communicating your thoughts effectively. I really wouldn't be bothering with this, everyone knows I have problems at communicating too, but you seem to imply that it is my burden to get better at deciphering what you really mean, rather than your task as a communicator to communicate your ideas better/clearer. If you really wish to argue that it makes more logical sense to assume that "I agree with Lewkowski" means that you agree with Lewkowski, except in areas that were left uncommunicated, and that we should naturally intuit these uncommunicated ideas, rather than "I agree with Lewkowski" meaning exactly what it states, go ahead. Sadly I am not telepathic, so more often than not if you go this route, I won't have a clear idea of what you mean. This is what the hot coco example was meant to illustrate. The thievery example, and the block of text related to it, were to demonstrate that you don't just agree with Lewkowski, there were conditions to your agreement which you did not detail. I don't fully understand how this is insulting to you.

This is what I wrote:

I think that Lewk made some good points, well, one anyway. While your children should know you'll stand by them through thick and thin, that you'll always love them and help them to acheive their full potential.It should also be known that you will not accept less than their best efforts, or hand out praise without merit until praise loses it's meaning and is expected rather than appreciated. When the child expects to praised for failure because "at least you tried" rather than getting the you'll have to work harder and practice/study/whatever more (with help from you as appropriate) then success ceases to matter, as failing is rewarded the same as success. (Copied and pasted this, sorry for no little arrow thingy to take you to the post)
I am not sure at which point you think I was unclear. Though I do admit to having trouble making my thoughts clear at times. It seems you either didn't read the entire post, or tried to read something into that isn't there. perhaps you're simply appalled at the thought of agreeing with Lewk on anything to any degree.
I was not insulted, and apologize for the "ignorance" remark, I was being rushed and improperly took my frustration out on you. Probably should've just lurked in yesterday.
Edit: Ahh, yes. in rereading my original post I did fail to specify the exact point where I agreed and began(?) to disagree with Lewk. I agree with him that praise should earned, I disagree that "falling short" should be punished. So called failure is sign to parent that they need help their children in the specific areas where they have "failed". I believe that children don't fail parents do.

[Loki]

Again, I would argue that the supply of potential PhD workers is greater than the demand, even for TA shit.

And surely you did some analysis on the university you chose for your phD? I'm in the best university in the nation, with the best connections to the best facilities in Europe (and the US, even), and I'm working with famous people who publish in tabloids on a regular basis. Which should I do, fight with my prof if we disagree, or move to a smaller university to get some throw-away phD?

*shrug* There are more choices here. If someone at Harvard had a disagreement with their department, what would stop them from going to Princeton or Yale? This is the exact same argument people use to claim that without government intervention or unions, all workers would get paid the minimum wage. Needless to say, that's been proven to be false.

[Nessus]

*shrug* There are more choices here. If someone at Harvard had a disagreement with their department, what would stop them from going to Princeton or Yale? This is the exact same argument people use to claim that without government intervention or unions, all workers would get paid the minimum wage. Needless to say, that's been proven to be false.

If you're in the middle of starting your career, you have three manuscripts but little published, let alone with you as principle author, how are you gonna change universities without a higher-up recommending it? Academia works by you showing your worth to someone and them using their contacts to get you somewhere through nepotism.

I don't know what Marxist moron told you all workers would be making minimum wage, but that's a straw-man I'm not going to touch.

[Loki]

If you're in the middle of starting your career, you have three manuscripts but little published, let alone with you as principle author, how are you gonna change universities without a higher-up recommending it? Academia works by you showing your worth to someone and them using their contacts to get you somewhere through nepotism.

I don't know what Marxist moron told you all workers would be making minimum wage, but that's a straw-man I'm not going to touch.

I think you answer your own question with the remark over nepotism. The reality is that academia today isn't based on a free market principle. People get positions for life and have no incentive to care about either the reputation of the department or its financial well-being.

Every Marxist claims that greedy capitalist pigs would pay their workers just enough to survive (if that) unless forced to do otherwise by the government or unions. That's the Marxist rationale for claiming that wages will constantly decrease (along with their Malthusianism).