China passes US to top output of influential science papers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the other dirty little secret about the science coming out of China:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03613-1

It is a lot easier to publish when you fudge results and plagarize other people's work.

This. It is a known issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

the only thing i got out of this mess of a post is that you have a kid, probably Asian, who scored really well on the SAT/ACT but didn't get into a college that you deemed acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On top of URM, legacy, athletes, and first generation ... 30% of admitted students are international.

another aggrieved trumper

I am a progressive Dem and think that foreign students should be limited to exchange only. 1 year max. And renounce citizenship if they want to be here longer.

Please make your voice heard in the Democratic Party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

the only thing i got out of this mess of a post is that you have a kid, probably Asian, who scored really well on the SAT/ACT but didn't get into a college that you deemed acceptable.

What PP wrote is a little bit cringe but it still contains a lot of truth. Nobody average or slightly above average is going to be making scientific breakthroughs in a PhD program. But, then again, PhD programs don't make special concessions for underrepresented groups - they typically don't even look at you if you aren't in the top 5% of standardized test takers. Which, I believe someone else said, means that inequitable undergraduate admissions policies probably aren't a major explanation for China outclassing us on citations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

the only thing i got out of this mess of a post is that you have a kid, probably Asian, who scored really well on the SAT/ACT but didn't get into a college that you deemed acceptable.

What PP wrote is a little bit cringe but it still contains a lot of truth. Nobody average or slightly above average is going to be making scientific breakthroughs in a PhD program. But, then again, PhD programs don't make special concessions for underrepresented groups - they typically don't even look at you if you aren't in the top 5% of standardized test takers. Which, I believe someone else said, means that inequitable undergraduate admissions policies probably aren't a major explanation for China outclassing us on citations.

what truth? PP is hyper-focused on undergraduate college admissions - which you agreed don't matter. are you saying that PhD programs don't look at you unless your SAT/ACT four years earlier was in the top 5%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On top of URM, legacy, athletes, and first generation ... 30% of admitted students are international.

And who do you think are authoring the publications? Those international students go heavily into STEM fields and often go on to be the US' leading scientist. We should admit MORE of them. Most Americans go into business, law, and humanities. They are not getting published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/China-passes-US-to-top-output-of-influential-science-papers

China passes US to top output of influential science papers
Academic strength could help further increase nation's industrial dominance

"Japan's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy counted the number of academic papers that are ranked among the top 10% in terms of citations and found that China has overtaken the U.S. and become No. 1. "

Because China doesn't do URM, Legacy, First Gen, Athlete, LGBTQ+, ect. for Colleges and Academics.

Please look at the metric. It is in terms of citation. Chinese scientists cannot cite US scientists. The Chinese are citing each other and it drives up the number. This is not something I would worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/China-passes-US-to-top-output-of-influential-science-papers

China passes US to top output of influential science papers
Academic strength could help further increase nation's industrial dominance

"Japan's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy counted the number of academic papers that are ranked among the top 10% in terms of citations and found that China has overtaken the U.S. and become No. 1. "

Because China doesn't do URM, Legacy, First Gen, Athlete, LGBTQ+, ect. for Colleges and Academics.

I am pretty comfortable with Athletes and Legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/China-passes-US-to-top-output-of-influential-science-papers

China passes US to top output of influential science papers
Academic strength could help further increase nation's industrial dominance

"Japan's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy counted the number of academic papers that are ranked among the top 10% in terms of citations and found that China has overtaken the U.S. and become No. 1. "

Because China doesn't do URM, Legacy, First Gen, Athlete, LGBTQ+, ect. for Colleges and Academics.

I am pretty comfortable with Athletes and Legacy.

Is this sarcasm? I would say the exact opppsite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

the only thing i got out of this mess of a post is that you have a kid, probably Asian, who scored really well on the SAT/ACT but didn't get into a college that you deemed acceptable.

What PP wrote is a little bit cringe but it still contains a lot of truth. Nobody average or slightly above average is going to be making scientific breakthroughs in a PhD program. But, then again, PhD programs don't make special concessions for underrepresented groups - they typically don't even look at you if you aren't in the top 5% of standardized test takers. Which, I believe someone else said, means that inequitable undergraduate admissions policies probably aren't a major explanation for China outclassing us on citations.

what truth? PP is hyper-focused on undergraduate college admissions - which you agreed don't matter. are you saying that PhD programs don't look at you unless your SAT/ACT four years earlier was in the top 5%?

Well, I guess that's not what I was saying but it's generally true. You're not even going to hop a quintile between SAT/ACT and GRE even with substantial prep. If you are in top 5% GRE you almost certainly were also top 10% SAT at least

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On top of URM, legacy, athletes, and first generation ... 30% of admitted students are international.

another aggrieved trumper

I am a progressive Dem and think that foreign students should be limited to exchange only. 1 year max. And renounce citizenship if they want to be here longer.

Please make your voice heard in the Democratic Party.

+10000. Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/China-passes-US-to-top-output-of-influential-science-papers

China passes US to top output of influential science papers
Academic strength could help further increase nation's industrial dominance

"Japan's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy counted the number of academic papers that are ranked among the top 10% in terms of citations and found that China has overtaken the U.S. and become No. 1. "

Because China doesn't do URM, Legacy, First Gen, Athlete, LGBTQ+, ect. for Colleges and Academics.

The US population is 334 million. China's population is 1445 million. We have 3.34 million in our top 1% intellectually. They have 14.45 million. It was inevitable, and is remarkable that it took so long.

Yes on top of that China just selects the best students, while the US needs to worry about URM, Legacy, First Gen, Athlete, LGBTQ+, ect.

They also steal and lie to obtain access to materials completed by US researchers.

Okay just keep on believing this if it makes you feel better

I deal with it everyday.

They certainly do steal. But if you think that's all they did to become the second largest economy (and soon to surpass US, mind you) you are fooling yourself.
We can't keep consuming ourselves with all this bunch of wokeism to be able to compete. Science is science, physical law is physical law, and the rocket can't launch if we hold back our brightest scientists and engineers just because they don't fit the quota of certain identity categories. We all may fall to the communism regime in a couple of decades if we allow the trend to continue. We should position our scientists and engineers solely based on merit, not any other criteria. We don't have much time to squander.

Look at our grad school STEM programs. Where do you think those students are from? Hint: most are not even American. URM do not have time and money to spend wasting away in PhD programs.

Almost all grad school STEM programs support their graduate students financially in research and/or teaching assisstant positions. So if one is interested in grad school in STEM, he is covered. Will, interest/passion and willingnes for hard work in STEM is all you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, you can look at it another way. Most scientific papers are published at a level beyond undergraduate education. As is often said on this very site, you can go to any school (selective university, state school, LAC), do well and go on to graduate programs. So the number of scientific papers is not the result of undergraduate admissions standards and practices.

Second, you don't know if the number of scientific papers published in China would actually go UP if they adopted US admissions practices. One could argue that US practices broaden the pool of students who are exposed to science and may later decide to pursue a career in the sciences. Maybe China is unnecessarily limiting itself by not considering these applicants and inviting them to study. Just as the quantity and quality of scientific research was improved when the pool was expanded to include women.

Nonsense. Students are already exposed to science in high school (or earlier); some can do it and some just can't. (I am talking about real science and not the "logies"). One needs very high IQ to do science and it is the universities' business to figure out who can indeed do it based on the students' performance in standardized tests etc. Unfortunately GPA does not provide reliable evidence since there is a lot of variation in the difficulty and originality needed from students to get an A across classes, teachers and schools. As a result universities in China (and many other countries) make admission decisions purely based on standardized test scores. That's how science works anyway: one needs to test competing hypotheses under the very same conditions to measure which one gives the best results. US universities make their admission decisions based on opaque/arbitrary criteria primarily to block the Asian flood. Since US universities can't produce good science students they have been importing graduate students from Asian universities, benefiting from their selective admission processes indirectly. Up until recently this system worked to a degree but it is coming to an end.

the only thing i got out of this mess of a post is that you have a kid, probably Asian, who scored really well on the SAT/ACT but didn't get into a college that you deemed acceptable.

And the poster apparently believes in eugenics as they seem to think Asians have a higher IQ.