China passes US to top output of influential science papers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your assuming that there are no loans from undergrad. A phd program means years of extra compounding interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

top 5% SAT is a composite score in the 1400s or a ACT score above 29, which means you could be at a wide range of colleges. It just reinforces the idea that your undergraduate education (and therefore undergraduate admissions practices) mean diddly squat even if you accept that this citation things is evidence of a problem. If anything, it means that graduate programs should have lower standards for US students. Are they being turned away in droves now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand this. It says the Chinese retraction rate is higher than in the West/rest. This is how science is supposed to be. If there's a fraud, it gets caught through peer review and get retracted. This is the hallmark of good science. Maybe there should be more retraction in the USA.