patrick.net

Rin says

put science and engineering students on a means tested, welfare/state sponsorship program

Why have you switched to a means tested program instead of a program that pays based on results or at least effort? Your original proposal said, "Then, in order to maintain one's stipend, a new exam must be taken every two years." Now you've shifted to means testing? That seems like the opposite of your own stated plan for your own future, i.e. you would be discouraging yourself from signing up. In addition, you would be creating a disincentive to do research that might prove moderately lucrative, because participants would fear losing their stipend.

curious2 says

Curious why a means tested program instead of a program that pays based on results or at least effort? Your original proposal said, "Then, in order to maintain one's stipend, a new exam must be taken every two years." Now you've shifted to means testing? That seems like the opposite of your own stated plan for your own future, i.e. you would be discouraging yourself from signing up. In addition, you would be creating a disincentive to do research that turns out to be moderately lucrative, because participants would fear losing their stipend.

Here's the thing ... real creative work, may or may not pay anything. Did any of Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machines ever come to fruition? No, Leo was a few centuries short of realizing his vision.

Plus, if one does write a best selling novel or screenplay, during his time on sponsorship, like let's say the next generation *Harry Potter series*, a paltry stipend pales in comparison to the royalties of a best seller.

Also, if I wanted to make money as let's say an Anesthesiologist, I'd also leave this STEM sponsorship program, because I'd be content being a gas doctor for the medical establishment.

The only reason why I'm in finance today, if you factor out the esc*rts in Canada, is that I know that in order to do my own independent studies/research, etc, I'd need my own source of income, independent of a full time job.

If I were let's say 19 to 29 and such a program were in place, perhaps I would have given up on becoming a BS artist/hedge fund manager and instead, did my own research under this stipend.

As for the exam, if you like the sciences, studying a new technical subject every two years isn't a big deal. In fact, I'd welcome it, as it would broaden my horizons. And yes, it's a way of gauging one's passions of the STEM areas.

Maybe the management has gone to your head, but you seem to have restated the question without answering it.

Rin says

curious2 says

Curious why a means tested program instead of a program that pays based on results or at least effort?

***
If I were let's say 19 to 29 and such a program was in place, perhaps I would have given up on becoming a BS artist/hedge fund manager and instead, did my own research under this stipend.
***

curious2 says

Maybe the management has gone to your head, but you seem to have restated the question without answering it.

You don't seem to be grasping it ... I despise corporate America. This entire hedge fund thing was born out of a bunch of engineers, looking for a way out of being exploited by the current system.

In a short time, the senior partners at this firm will buy out my equity and I'll be retired.

The fact that we are currently successful is fortuitous but in reality, I would have preferred if society gave me the resources, to pursue my own interests, without having to jump through all these hoops.

In today's world, you just can't work for let's say Honeywell Corp, be put under a miscellaneous R&D budget code, and spend your time on creative ventures. No, that group will be laid off and then, those who are leftover, will be justifying their hours to execs.

The current system is broken.

You have made your motivations and emotions clear, but you still haven't answered the question.

curious2 says

Why have you switched to a means tested program instead of a program that pays based on results or at least effort?

I have been wondering lately why STEM graduates succeed in some areas but fail at designing policy, e.g. Herbert Hoover was a very successful engineer but a terribly unsuccessful president. I think it's because they tend not to apply the same discipline to thinking through policy. If you want to design a successful policy, it might help you to think it through like a chain reaction, or in Dan's case a computer program. (The advantage in policy continues to be as Machiavelli wrote: technology changes, but human nature remains constant. As a result, you can draw on a longer history of examples in policy than in software.)

If you look at Pruitt-Igoe, means testing resulted in catastrophic failure. The buildings were literally torn down and destroyed because they became uninhabitable. How? A major factor was means testing rent as a % of income. The next steps in the chain reaction followed predictably: ppl who made most of their money illegally (theft, extortion, prostitution, drug dealing) declared minimal income and paid minimal rent, while people who had legal wages found they could do better moving elsewhere. The result was an uninhabitable neighborhood dominated by violent crime.

Applying this lesson to your STEM program, the likely consequence of means testing would be to divert research into better ways to cook meth, developing new varieties of meth, and new ways to smuggle meth (think Traffic). All the income is undeclared, so participants don't risk their stipend, and the potential for jackpots is huge. If you want people to research useful things that might be slightly lucrative, you should avoid policies that would punish them for finding something.

On a personal level, what's interesting to grasp is how you missed the question twice. You're obviously bright, but you changed the conditions of your policy proposal perhaps without even noticing, and then perhaps your emotional attachment to the position may have blinded you to the repeated question about it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3nyEvgCK4wg

Rin says

Here's the thing ... real creative work, may or may not pay anything. Did any of Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machines ever come to fruition? No, Leo was a few centuries short of realizing his vision.

I'm not so sure about that last part:

In WWII several British POW's built a WORKING glider out of bedsheets, porridge, and castle floor boards as prisoners of war in Colditz castle, Germany's most "secure" prison.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/naziprison/colditz.html

The castle was already a few hundred years old by the time Leonardo was working on his flying contraptions. The prisoners were liberated on the eve of their escape attempt and the original glider was lost to history but an exact recreation made 65 years later with the same materials flew beautifully.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-03-17/colditz-castle-glider-escape-plot-realised-more-than-65-years-after-the-war

Leonardo had access to the same and better materials e.g. silk, spruce wood, purpose built fixtures. He also had MUCH better tools available and he was not under armed guard.

If his flying contraptions didn't work it was because the designs were flawed. Seriously do you think THIS could ever fly?

I let Rin's DaVinci comment go, but it did remind me of a PBS program where the participants built a glider based on DaVinci's designs and it did fly successfully. The issue was, modern people have the benefit of hindsight to know which designs were most likely to work, and modern safety equipment, and the British team on PBS had the British NHS. Leo had no way to know which of his designs would eventually succeed, and if anything went wrong the combined risks of injury and 16th century medicine were very discouraging.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XC74ImdHaLQ

curious2 says

Applying this lesson to your STEM program, the likely consequence of means testing would be to divert research into better ways to cook meth, developing new varieties of meth, and new ways to smuggle meth (think Traffic). All the income is undeclared, so participants don't risk their stipend, and the potential for jackpots is huge. If you want people to research useful things that might be slightly lucrative, you should avoid policies that would punish them for finding something.

In defense of the potential illegal activities, illegal activities are lucrative, esp in relation to psychotropics. Once a smart person makes money illicitly, why would he want to take exams, every two years in Complex Variables or Non-Linear Dynamical Systems?

You see, the hope of using this govt money to live a life of being a big time drug maker, while maintaining a postdoc stipend, makes little sense. I mean it's like the DEA will have access to both, his normal STEM stipend info, plus all the extra lifestyle data he's accumulating being a drug lord. We're not just taking about W-2s but about hotels, cars, vacations, etc. There's little chance that a postdoc could be living large, as a part-time drug maker.

If anything, if I were a drug maker, I'd want to be invisible and off the govt's radar. I'd be on stipend for perhaps, 1 to 3 years and then, disappear, off the grid.

And the difference between the other examples you'd given, meaning inner city housing projects, and mine is that in my scenario, these persons would have to have the intellectual capital or tenacity, to be STEM persons. And of course, being STEM persons, they have the brains to find a way of making money elsewhere, if they don't want to do pure R&D, like finance, patent law, or health care. Many smart ppl will leave the purity of research, to become a salesman. I did.

Maybe I need to re-phrase my question.

curious2 says

Why have you switched to a means tested program instead of a program that pays based on results or at least effort?

Picture two parallel universes, identical in every respect except one. In Universe A, you have your original policy, as you explained it in your prior thread on the topic (which I quoted above). In Universe B, you have your changed policy, which is based on means testing, which you introduced in this new thread. Please can you explain, why is Universe B superior to Universe A?

Rin says

Once a smart person makes money illicitly, why would he want to take exams, every two years in Complex Variables or Non-Linear Dynamical Systems?

People have families. This was part of the dynamic in Pruitt-Igoe; the issue is not only the prostitute in apartment 4Z or whatever, but also her three kids, who shoplift. A legal stipend like aid to women with dependent children provides a nice cover for how you make a living, while the illicit cash piles up along with toys bought with cash and accumulating in a barn somewhere. Also, you seem to have assumed, mistakenly, that the prostitute in 4Z (or whatever) isn't smart; in fact, she is acting rationally within her policy environment, and succeeding by evolutionary terms.

curious2 says

Picture two parallel universes, identical in every respect except one. In Universe A, you have your original policy, as you explained it in your prior thread on the topic. In Universe B, you have your changed policy, which is based on means testing. Please can you explain, why is Universe B superior to Universe A?

In the world as we live in it, the results are what the Captains of Industry or Academia deem as worthy. This group is a type of oligarchy.

In my alternate scenario, the passionate seeker of the truth, provided that he's not starving and thus, doesn't leave his work to become an accountant, will continue to pursue knowledge. He'll be insulted by the so-called Captains of Industry/Academia as an idiot or fraud.

A generation lapses and someone finds this person's work. This discovery is then used to develop a new solution for energy storage and transformation. The world is affected in a dramatic way.

Now, the aforementioned genius, who's now on Social Security, suddenly gets recognition while the alleged Captains of Industry/Academia are called Robber Barons/Lying Academicians and their descendents are made to feel like a bunch of DeBeers offsprings, you know, the beneficiaries of Apartheid in South Africa.

Rin says

In my alternate scenario....

You don't seem to understand, you have proposed two different alternate scenarios. I even rephrased my question to assign each alternate scenario its own parallel universe, but still you repeat the question without answering? You're flailing all over the place, even to Apartheid of all things, perhaps indicating an intensifying emotional reaction without getting any closer to the actual question.

curious2 says

A legal stipend like aid to women with dependent children provides a nice cover for how you make a living, while the illicit cash piles up along with toys bought with cash and accumulating in a barn somewhere. Also, you seem to have assumed, mistakenly, that the prostitute in 4Z (or whatever) isn't smart

If this person can pass a bunch of science and engineering exams then chances are ... there's some job out there for her. That's the difference.

Many STEM folks leave the academy or the R&D labs for other careers, because they have the combination of education and know-how, to make that happen.

A hustler from the *south side of town*, while clever, will not get to that stage of her life, where she can do the books of a company, manage their unix scripts, or sell their routers to the Fortune 1000.

In my society, many will not stay and leave for those types of careers.

Rin says

If this person can pass a bunch of science and engineering exams then chances are ... there's some job out there for her. That's the difference.

I regret, now, having answered your question, because you have not got any closer to answering mine. Please forget the hypothetical prostitute in 4Z or wherever, if you can, at least for a moment. How is Universe B, where you have your second alternate scenario (with the means testing) superior to Universe A (where you have your first alternate scenario, with payment based on measuring results or efforts)?

Rin says

In my society....

You have proposed two different societies based on two different policy environments. I have asked four times why you believe that one of your two proposals is better than the other. I won't trouble you with repeating the question again, we've both wasted more time on it than it's worth.

curious2 says

Rin says

If this person can pass a bunch of science and engineering exams then chances are ... there's some job out there for her. That's the difference.

I regret, now, having answered your question, because you have not got any closer to answering mine. Please forget the prostitute in 4Z or wherever, if you can, at least for a moment. How is Universe B, where you have your second alternate scenario (with the means testing) superior to Universe A (where you have your first alternate scenario, with payment based on measuring results or efforts?

In my means tested scenario B, ppl will be asked/required to continue to study science and engineering subjects.

In the real world, many ppl are not that motivated to learn and thus, will look for a short cut. Yes, they'll stay on the sponsorship until they get into medical school or pass their CPA exam. Afterwards, they'll disappear.

In this scenario B, the ppl who'll want to be sponsored long term, will be motivated not by money but by their interest in following their passions.

Thus, you won't see the welfare queens, drug makers, etc, wanting to be a part of this program, as there are easier ways for them to make money and be invisible to the system.

Instead, it's the creative folks, the ppl who get excited by their own work, who'll stick around, and can't find a home in this corporate America.

I think you don't understand the definition of means testing. That would explain why you don't understand that you have proposed two different policies, and the likely results of each.

curious2 says

I think you don't understand the definition of means testing. That would explain why you don't understand that you have proposed two different policies.

Actually, I don't think you've got it.

In reality, how many ppl can pass an exam on Thermodynamics and at the same time, show an income less than X, to be sponsored?

This is a rapidly shrinking percent of the population. The derelicts you describe will not be motivated to give this thing a try. In fact, I'd guarantee that the first batch of ppl, would be American postdocs, looking for a way out of their indentured servitude to the university labs.

Now, would it be so bad, giving these ppl some sanctuary, so that they don't need to be semi-permanent slaves to some principal investigators?

Realize, I didn't go through graduate school. New Renter did and he can verify how bad the situation is.

Rin says

In reality, how many ppl can pass an exam on Thermodynamics and at the same time, show an income less than X, to be sponsored?

Ted Kaczynski, for one.

Rin says

Now, would it be so bad....

This is a waste of time. There is no point having a lengthy debate when you don't understand the terms you are using and the discrete concepts they represent. It would end with, "Oh, I meant something else." I'll copy and paste a working definition for you, then I'm done.

Here you go:

"means-testing, by which poorer [participants] would receive more generous benefits and the wealthy would receive less (or none at all)."

This kid couldn't find a job because it's not STEM...it's STEAM. This is for real...educators are buying into this bullshit:

http://stemtosteam.org/

In this climate of economic uncertainty, America is once again turning to innovation as the way to ensure a prosperous future.

Yet innovation remains tightly coupled with Science, Technology, Engineering and Math – the STEM subjects. Art + Design are poised to transform our economy in the 21st century just as science and technology did in the last century.

We need to add Art + Design to the equation — to transform STEM into STEAM.

STEM + Art = STEAM

STEAM is a movement championed by Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) and widely adopted by institutions, corporations and individuals.

The objectives of the STEAM movement are to:

transform research policy to place Art + Design at the center of STEM
encourage integration of Art + Design in K–20 education
influence employers to hire artists and designers to drive innovation

curious2 says

Rin says

In reality, how many ppl can pass an exam on Thermodynamics and at the same time, show an income less than X, to be sponsored?

Ted Kaczynski, for one.

Rin says

Now, would it be so bad....

This is a waste of time. There is no point having a lengthy debate when you don't understand the terms you are using. It would end with, "Oh, I meant something else." I'll copy and paste a definition for you, then I'm done.

Here's your problem, you're looking for some validation, from some greater forces within society. You need some 'higher up' telling you what's right or wrong.

Here's something to throw a monkey wrench at that ... I'd earned $700K last year.

Does that 'validate' my contribution to society? For me, it doesn't and here's why ... I know that we live in a rentier society and that those who play the game, finance or what have you, earn the dollars from the ignorance of the populace.

Why am I doing this, if it doesn't make me happy? Here's why, in order for me to do my own research, only I can pay my own bills. I cannot work for (and take orders from) an established academician or others, whose purpose it is, to either steal my ideas or worse, suppress my ideas to validate the zeitgeist of his organization.

Rin says

Here's your problem, you're looking for some validation, from some greater forces within society. You need some 'higher up' telling you what's right or wrong.

No, I swear to you, I was only asking a simple question.

Rin says

I'd earned $700K last year.

There's your problem. It's replaced diligence with arrogance. The question was very simple. I don't even care anymore - your proposal isn't worth the time we've wasted discussing it, no matter how much money you put behind it or how emotionally committed you become to the position. Madoff made lots of money too, and Pete Peterson (whose policy ideas I do read, not because he's "higher up" than you but because he thinks through his policy ideas).

Artisans will rise.

curious2 says

Rin says

I'd earned $700K last year.

There's your problem. It's replaced diligence with arrogance. The question was very simple. I don't even care anymore - your proposal isn't worth the time we've wasted discussing it.

It's obvious you don't get it then.

Sure, let the so-called free market have its way.

In a few decades, this country will be like Nigeria, with oligarchs owning the industries, the ordinary American being broke, and the work done in Asia.

In my line of work, I'd met with these owners of capital and if you honestly believe that these are wonderful and talented ppl then I've got a bridge to sell to you.

The hope of my science and engineering sponsorship state will at least put a bit of a delay in that happening.

But no, you're more concerned about some means-test.

Rin says

you're more concerned about some means-test.

LOL that was your (second) proposal - don't try to mis-attribute it to me. I was curious about your first proposal, and why you switched to your second, but when I asked that question I got a series of non-responsive and increasingly bizarre comments.

curious2 says

Rin says

you're more concerned about some means-test.

LOL that was your (second) proposal - don't try to mis-attribute it to me.

Hey, you tried to confuse an authentic STEM examination system with some housing projects on the south side of town.

Rin says

Hey, you tried to confuse an authentic STEM examination system with some housing projects on the south side of town.

I did no such thing, but you became obsessed with the hypothetical prostitute in 4Z or wherever. Examine her all you like, it makes no difference to me.

curious2 says

Rin says

Hey, you tried to confuse an authentic STEM examination system with some housing projects on the south side of town.

I did no such thing, but you became obsessed with the hypothetical prostitute in 4Z or wherever.

What about your Meth lab analogy? Isn't that also 'south side' related?

You switched your proposal to concentrate resources on encouraging meth labs and unabombers? That's your answer? I'm sorry I asked. I prefer AF's confidence in the inevitability of cannibal anarchy without requiring a new program.

curious2 says

You switched your proposal to encourage meth labs and unabombers?

No, that's you.

In my scenario, many ppl simply leave to become accountants, actuaries, doctors, or patent agents.

Rin says

In my scenario, many ppl simply leave to become accountants, actuaries, doctors, or patent agents.

Do you understand that you have proposed two different scenarios and still not answered the original question? How does the means test encourage that result?

Here is a sample answer to show what one might look like.

If there were means testing, then people who want more money would leave the program so they can earn a higher legal income. Without means testing, they would continue to participate in the program, even while earning a higher income, and that would be bad because space aliens or something.

Do you see how in that sample answer I distinguished between the two versions of your proposal? I observed that there were two versions and I thought through consequences of each. I didn't get emotional about robber barons or Apartheid or whatnot.

curious2 says

Rin says

In my scenario, many ppl simply leave to become accountants, actuaries, doctors, or patent agents.

Do you understand that you have still not answered the question? How does the means test encourage that result?

Here is a sample answer to show what one might look like.

If there were means testing, then people who want more money would leave the program so they can earn a higher legal income. Without means testing, they would continue to participate in the program, even while earning a higher income, and that would be bad because space aliens or something.

What part of this do you not understand?

Corporate America and Academic America do not allow *freedom* to their worker bees.

The examination system gives *freedom* to these people.

If a person doesn't care about *freedom* and simply wants a paycheck, he'll take the CPA exam and become an accountant.

In fact, a lot of STEM graduates (esp from Ivy colleges, MIT, Stanford, Duke) start at Wall St at $90K+ and have left the life of the academy from day zero. Years later, a lot of these ppl find themselves burnt out and not interested in anything afterwards.

The only way to encourage the creative souls to pursue their passions, which excludes working in finance, patents, medicine, etc, is to give them a place to be, independent of the whole academic graduate school/postdoc world. Our society will not pay creative ppl anymore. They pay for academic or corporate servitude.

Rin says

What part of this do you not understand?

Your persistent refusal to answer one simple question, and my SIWOTI that caused me to ask more than once. That's two parts, but I'd settle for understanding the first.

curious2 says

Rin says

What part of this do you not understand?

Your refusal to answer a simple question, and my SIWOTI that caused me to ask more than once. That's two parts, but I'd settle for understanding the first.

Your question is incentive and my answer was *freedom*.

A worker bee for corporate America is not free.

That person will never be free. All her ideas will be owned by the parent company and thus, she's no better off than a serf.

Rin says

Your question is incentive

No, my question is the same as it always was, and you still have not answered.

But here's the thing - I'm working on the SIWOTI. I am going to take a deep breath, log out, forget about the question, and move on with my life. The answer doesn't even matter anyway, our lives will not be one day longer or shorter because of it, but we will accomplish less in the time allowed if we keep wasting time on it.

Wish me luck.

"Why have you switched to a means tested program instead of a program that pays based on results or at least effort? Your original proposal said, "Then, in order to maintain one's stipend, a new exam must be taken every two years." Now you've shifted to means testing? That seems like the opposite of your own stated plan for your own future, i.e. you would be discouraging yourself from signing up. In addition, you would be creating a disincentive to do research that might prove moderately lucrative, because participants would fear losing their stipend."

If this is your question, then you've got it all wrong. Creative ppl need to be free, not be given incentives.

Incentives are for ppl who have no inspiration in life.

Sure, there are STEM ppl who have no such inspiration. Many of them will find any job in corporate America and move on. For them, this program doesn't matter, as they'll be sales directors or program managers at some point in their careers.

But to prevent ppl from simply getting a check for having a STEM degree, periodically, that person will need to take an exam, to keep the thing going. That's fair because many folks, once they find that actuary job, will leave anyways. So why pay them?

Your ideas are based upon today's welfare state which encourages ppl not to work. STEM folks, on the other hand, love to do something. That's the difference. And the best way to harness it, is to remove the clutches of corporate America and academic America from its hold. Those institutions are degenerated and run by bean counters and liars.

what about the millions who never studied STEM but are now working in STEM?

STEM jobs may not be as shiny as many had perceived due to outsourcing but this article screams extreme exaggerations. it clearly is written by a bullshitter and may be an incompetent one as well.

"least 90 percent of my college education (and that of so many others) boiled down to pure terminology, or analysis of terminology."

this right there tells you this guy is full of crap. maybe he actually went to the University of Phoenix or some other mail order University? no freaking way the professors spend 90% of the time on terminology. they teach you a lot of concepts but those requires more than just memorizing words. programming courses, data structure, advanced data structure, networking, security, database, software engineering, operating systems, assembly language, distributed systems, algorithms, advanced algorithms, system programming, embedded systems, not mentioning required math courses. i worked my ass off in those classes, also in a public school like the one he claims to have gone. i wish it was simple as "90% terminology."

"by the time I left school, all of the software and programming languages I’d learned had been obsolete for years."

you think that after spending 4 years in a university a comp-sci grad would be a bit wiser than this. how would any university be able to keep up with the real world? a college education is meant to teach him the basics and to evaluate his level of commitment and potentials. nothing else.

relying on a school or classes to teach you the languages required for a development job, especially one for new grads, is one clear indication that you are not fit for this kind of work. maybe he can become a full time bullshit writer. this way he can unlock his full "potentials."

his linkedin says MIS, that's not Computer Science as he claimed in the article.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/casey-ark/23/194/668

Mark D says

his linkedin says MIS, that's not Computer Science as he claimed in the article.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/casey-ark/23/194/668

Good catch. Management (of) Information System is a CS-lite degree, at best.

justme says

Mark D says

his linkedin says MIS, that's not Computer Science as he claimed in the article.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/casey-ark/23/194/668

Good catch. Management (of) Information System is a CS-lite degree, at best.

Also, he's listing himself as 'CEO' of some unknown web company. That's immediate shredder resume for an entry level job in corporate America.

For a newcomer, even if one's self-employed, one needs to label himself as programmer analyst, research analyst, systems engineer, etc.

curious2 says

Ted Kaczynski, for one.

Another bad example ... Kaczynski was living off the grid. That's how he avoided capture for years.

In my sponsorship society, the govt will know that he's around, as he'll be cashing checks once in a while. Those who'll be on this program are obviously not going to be running terrorist rackets, since detection would be rather easy.

For the most part, many postdocs in academia will be the first to join up. And then, it'll be the gypsy scholars/adjunct profs, who can't find full time professorships. Many of these ppl will transition out of science altogether, within a few years. Those who'll stick around will have some *inner* incentive, yes, read that one, inner incentive, not a carrot/stick, to do their own thing.