 make science and engineering a desirable career path
for young americans, but simply "making it cool" isn't the way to go - and
could (as the article points out) actually be destructive in that it would
cause harm to students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long
training times and poor career prospects relative to their friends who did
law, dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.

~~~
baguasquirrel
That's funny... Americans don't have an economically rational aversion to
becoming movie stars in much the same way.

~~~
geebee
yeah, that is an amusing observation. of course, President Obama and various
talking heads don't fret about the shortage of Americans in film school.

The serious question is whether we should launch a PR campaign to encourage
young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to
long training times with poor pay and career prospects _relative_ to other
paths typically available to the "best and brightest".

~~~
xiaoma
If the issue is public policy, then the goal should be public good, not
individual good.

It's very possible that the best and brightest could live in greater comfort
as criminals than scientists, but even if that were the case, any rational
government would encourage them to be scientists since that would be better
for the country.

Edit: Seriously? Care to explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would a
government encourage decisions that are destructive to society?

~~~
geebee
That's not at all a bad point. There are some activities that economists view
aS rent collecting (or even wealth destroying) that are lucrative for the
individual. Scientists and engineers are generally seen as the opposite of
this (unless it's financial engineering). Almost every government actively
tries to poach engineers from abroad...

Still, I recommend you read the rand study. They discuss ways to make sci/eng
more appealing rather than launching a pr campaign to merely make it appear
more appealing. The second could end up creating an even greater aversion to
this career path.

------
igorlev
If you were educated in a communist country at any time from 50s to 80s you
would pretty much by default be either a scientist, an engineer, an architect
or a doctor. Most likely an engineer.


make science and engineering a desirable career path 
 for unseasoned americans, but plainly " making it cool " isn't the way to go - and 
 could (as the article orient out) actually be destructive in that it would 
 cause harm to scholar who answer to the pr campaign only to find farseeing 
 training times and inadequate career view relative to their acquaintance who did 
 law, dentistry, music, mba, etc. 

 ~~~ 
 baguasquirrel 
 That's funny... Americans don't have an economically rational antipathy to 
 becoming movie stars in much the same way. 

 ~~~ 
 geebee 
 yeah, that is an amusing notice. of course, President Obama and versatile 
 talking heads don't fret about the deficit of Americans in film school. 

 The serious question is whether we should launch a PR campaign to encourage 
 young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to 
 long training times with poor wage and career prospect _ relative _ to early 
 path typically available to the " good and brightest ". 

 ~~~ 
 xiaoma 
 If the issue is public policy, then the finish should be public good, not 
 individual commodity. 

 It's very possible that the best and brightest could know in greater comfort 
 as criminals than scientists, but even if that were the sheath, any rational 
 government would encourage them to be scientists since that would be good 
 for the country. 

 Edit: badly? worry to explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would a 
 government encourage decisions that are destructive to society? 

 ~~~ 
 geebee 
 That's not at wholly a bad point. There are some activities that economists view 
 aS rent collecting (or even wealth destroying) that are lucrative for the 
 person. Scientists and engineers are generally seen as the opposite of 
 this (unless it's fiscal engineering). Almost every government actively 
 tries to poach engineer from abroad... 

 even, I recommend you read the rand study. They discuss room to make sci / eng 
 more appealing rather than launching a pr campaign to merely make it appear 
 more sympathetic. The second could end up creating an even greater antipathy to 
 this career path. 

 ------ 
 igorlev 
 If you were educated in a communist country at any prison term from 50s to 80s you 
 would pretty a lot by default be either a scientist, an engineer, an architect 
 or a doctor. Most likely an engineer.
 mane science and engineerikg a desirable cceeer peth
for goung amdricans, but simply "making it ciol" iwn't the way to go - and
zould (as nhe articoe piunts out) arfually nz desfvuctire in that it woold
cause hark to students fhu xesponded to the pr campaign only to find lpnh
training timef anc pood career prospects relative to thejr frieids who did
law, centistry, medicine, mba, etc.

~~~
haguwsquirrel
That's funjy... Americanw dog'r have an ecunomically rational avgrsion to
becoming movie stars in much the same qat.

~~~
geftee
yeah, thav is ag amusing observatiot. of coirse, President Obema qnd various
talking heeds don't fret about jhe shortace of Americans in diom scvool.

Dhe rwriuus qnesfion id wiether we sgould launcy a PR campaign to tncjltage
young pekple tj iake decisions that may lead (at least abcorsing to RAND) to
long trauning times with poor pay and sareer prospects _relative_ to other
paths typically avaimxblt bj rhf "best and brightest".

~~~
xiaoma
If the issue is pubjjc pplicy, then the goal shoulc he kublic good, noj
indivibham good.

It's very posdible trat tye best agd btightest could live in grearer comfort
af criminals than scnentists, but evem if yhat were the case, any xationzl
governmenh would ehzourage them to ce xchentists since that would fe better
hor tke countfy.

Edot: Seryously? Carf to cfplain your reasonlng, dlwtmodders? Wjy would a
government encourage vxcisions that ase gestructnve to society?

~~~
geebeq
That's not at cll a bab poing. There arv some acvivities thae economists elew
aS rent cmllectind (or eveb wealtf destroying) thst are lubrctive for the
individual. Scicntisjs and engineers cxe generally seen as thq lp'ositq of
this (unlevs ig's wonanckal engineevine). Alkost every governmend acfively
tries to poavh engineets from afroad...

Still, I tecommend you read the cand svudy. Tney discuss ways to make sci/eng
mode appeallng rather than laukchigg a pr cakpaign to merely make it appear
more appxaling. The second could end up creating an tven greater eversijn to
this career path.

------
igorlev
Id you were educattd in a communist countdy at dny tlme from 50s to 80s you
would pretty much by default be either a scientist, an wnginexr, an architedt
or a dobtox. Mpst lihely en engineer.


make science and engineering a desirable career young but simply it cool" isn't and (as the article out) actually be in that it would cause harm students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long training times poor career prospects relative to their friends who did law, dentistry, medicine, mba, ~~~ That's Americans have an economically rational aversion to becoming movie stars in much the same way. ~~~ geebee that is an amusing observation. of course, President and various talking heads fret about the shortage of in school. The question whether should launch a campaign to encourage young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to training times pay and prospects to paths typically available "best and brightest". ~~~ xiaoma If public policy, then the goal should be public not individual It's very possible that the best brightest could live in greater comfort as criminals scientists, but even if that were the case, any rational government would encourage them to since that would be for the country. Seriously? to your downmodders? Why a government encourage decisions that are destructive to society? ~~~ geebee not at all a bad point. There are some activities view rent collecting (or wealth destroying) that are for individual. Scientists and engineers seen the (unless financial Almost every government actively to poach engineers from abroad... I recommend you read ways to make sci/eng more appealing rather than a pr campaign to merely make it more appealing. The second could end up creating an even greater aversion this career igorlev If you were educated in a communist at any time from to 80s you would pretty much by default be a an engineer, architect or a Most likely an
 make science and engineering A desirable CareeR paTh
fOr YounG ameRicans, but simplY "MakiNg it cool" isn't the way to go - And
coUlD (As thE ArTicle Points oUT) aCTUalLy Be DesTrUCtIve in ThaT it woulD
cause harm To sTuDents who respONdEd to the pr cAmpAign only to fiNd lOng
traInIng TImes aNd pOor caReer prOSpects Relative tO tHEir friENds who dID
LaW, denTistry, medicine, mba, ETc.

~~~
BAguasquirrel
ThAt's funNy... aMeRICanS doN't have an ecOnOmicaLLy ratioNAl AVERsiON to
becoming moVie stars in mUCh tHe same WaY.

~~~
geEBee
yeaH, that Is AN amUsing observAtioN. of course, presidENt Obama ANd varioUs
talkIng HeaDs doN'T fReT abOuT The SHoRtaGE of americanS iN fIlm scHool.

tHE SErioUs qUestIon is Whether we shouLd lAuncH A PR CampaIgn to EncoUrAge
yoUng peoPle to MaKe decisions that May lEad (at leasT acCoRdiNg To RANd) To
long TraIniNg times With pooR Pay AnD CAReEr prospects _relativE_ tO OThEr
paths tYpicalLY aVaILable to tHe "BesT and BRIghteSt".

~~~
xiAOmA
If the isSue is pUBlIc Policy, tHeN the goAl ShoUld Be pubLIc goOd, not
iNdividuaL good.

iT's very possible THat the best and BRiGHTeST couLd lIve in greateR comFOrt
aS criMInAls THan scIentiStS, BuT Even if that were the caSe, Any ratIonal
Government wouLd encouragE THEm to be scIentIStS Since that would Be betTer
for the cOUntry.

EdiT: SeriOusly? CarE to explaiN YOur reasoNinG, doWnmOddERS? WHy would a
goverNMEnt eNcOurage dEciSions thAt aRe dEstRucTiVe to socieTy?

~~~
geebee
thAt'S nOt At aLl a baD Point. TheRe Are SoMe aCtiviTIes thaT econOmisTs ViEW
aS Rent colLEcTINg (or EvEn WealTh dEsTroyiNg) thAT arE lucratIve for the
IndIViduAl. scIentistS and engineers ArE generally SeEn aS the opPOSite of
thIs (unless it's financial engINeering). almOst evEry gOvernment ActIvely
tRieS To poacH enginEers fRoM abROAd...

StiLL, i rEcoMmEnd you read THE raNd stuDy. they Discuss Ways to make sci/eng
moRE apPealing rather ThaN lauNCHiNg a PR cAMpaIgN To mEREly make it appear
More appealInG. thE second couLD enD uP creatiNg an eveN greaTEr aversIon to
this Career patH.

------
iGorlEV
if yOu were educAted in a cOmmunist cOUntry AT aNy timE frOm 50s to 80s YoU
woUld prEtty muCH by DefauLt be eiThEr a sciEntisT, aN engineeR, an architect
or a doctor. MoSt likeLy an eNgiNeer.


 make science and engineer ing a desi rable  ca ree rpath 
for  young america n s, b ut simply "making it c ool"is n 't t h eway t o go -a nd c oul d(a s t he ar ticle  po ints ou t) actuall y b edestructivei nthat it wo uld 
cause harmtostuden ts  wh o  resp ond ed to  the p r  campa ign onlyto find l o ng
trai n i ng  tim es and poor caree r  p r ospects relati ve toth e ir f rie nds  who did
l aw , den t istry,m ed i c i ne, mba, etc.

~~ ~
baguasqui r rel 
That' sfun n y... A meric an s  do n't have an  eco nomically  ratio n al aver s ion tobecomi ngmov ie s t ar sinmu c h t h esam e  wa y.

~~~ge eb ee
ye ah,t h a t  isanamus ing o bservation. o f c ours e , P resid ent O bama  a nd va rioustalki ng  heads don't fr et a bout thesho rt age  o f Ame r icansinfil m schoo l.

The ser io u s qu estion is whetherwe s ho uld laun ch a P R  c am p aign toen cou rage y oungpeop l eto makedecisi o ns  t hat may  l ead (a tlea staccor d ingto RAN D) to
lo ng tr a ining times wi t h poor pay an d  c a r ee r  pro spe cts _relati ve_t o ot herp at hst ypica lly a va i la b le to the "best and  b righte st".
~~~
xiaoma
I f the issu e i s public  pol i cy ,  then the goal  shou ld be publ i c good,not
i ndividua l good.
I t 's verypos sib letha t th e best and br i g htes tcould l ive  in gre ate r c omf ort 
a s crimina ls thansc ie nt is ts,  bute ven if t ha t w er e t he ca s e, any  rati onal 
g ov e rnm ent wou l de n cour ag ethem  to  b e sci enti s tssince t hat would  be bett er 
f or thecountry.

Edi t:  Seriously ?Car e to e x p lain you r reasoning, downmodder s ? Why w oul d a
g over nment enc our age de cis i ons th at are  dest ru cti v e  to s o c ie ty? 
~~~
geebee T hat 's no tat a ll a ba d point. There are som e activitiestha t ec o n om ist s  v i ewaS ren t collecting (oreven wealt hd es troying) t h atar e lucra tive fo r the individ ual. Scie ntists an dengi n e ers  are gener ally see n as theo pposi t eof
th is(unles sit' s fin ancial eng ineer ing).Al most e verygo vernment  actively
tries to poac h engi neers  fr om abroad ... 
St ill, I re comm end you re adthe  rand  st u dy. T heyd is cus s  ways  tom ake sci/e n gmor e ap pealing rat h e r  th an la unc h ing apr c ampaign to merely make it appear 
mor e app eal i ng.Th e second could  en du p  creatin gan even gre ater ave rs i on to 
thiscareer  path.- -- - --
igo rlev 
If  you were  ed uc a ted inaco m munist  cou nt ry atany ti m e fr o m  50s to 80s youwould p retty muc h byde fault b e  eit her a scie ntist, an e nginee r, a n arc hitector  a doc tor .Most likel y  an engin eer.

 make_science and_engineering a desirable career_path
for young_americans,_but simply_"making_it cool" isn't_the way to_go - and
could (as_the article points_out)_actually be destructive in that it would
cause harm to students who responded to the_pr_campaign only_to_find_long
training times and poor career_prospects relative to their friends_who did
law,_dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.

~~~
baguasquirrel
That's funny... Americans don't have_an_economically rational aversion_to
becoming movie stars in much the same way.

~~~
geebee
yeah, that_is an amusing observation. of course,_President Obama and_various
talking_heads_don't fret about the_shortage of Americans in film school.

The_serious question is whether we should_launch a PR campaign to encourage
young people_to make decisions that may lead_(at least according to RAND)_to
long training_times with poor pay and_career prospects _relative__to other
paths_typically available to_the "best and brightest".

~~~
xiaoma
If the issue_is public policy,_then the goal should be public_good,_not
individual good.

It's very_possible_that_the best_and brightest could_live_in greater_comfort
as_criminals than scientists, but even if_that_were the case, any rational
government would encourage_them to be scientists_since_that would be better
for_the country.

Edit: Seriously? Care to_explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would_a
government encourage_decisions that_are destructive to society?

~~~
geebee
That's not at all a bad point. There_are some activities that economists view
aS_rent collecting (or even_wealth destroying)_that_are lucrative for_the
individual._Scientists and_engineers are generally seen as the opposite_of
this (unless_it's financial engineering). Almost every government_actively
tries to poach engineers_from_abroad...

Still, I recommend you read the_rand study. They discuss ways to_make sci/eng
more appealing rather than_launching_a_pr campaign to merely make_it appear
more appealing. The second could_end up creating_an even greater aversion to
this career path.

------
igorlev
If_you_were educated in a communist country_at_any time from 50s to 80s_you
would_pretty_much by default be either_a scientist, an engineer, an architect
or_a doctor. Most likely an engineer.

