TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I dropped out of IEEE because they represented management in importing engineers to reduce engineer salaries. But to me I'm not really talking about outsourcing but actual engineers either naturalized or here on a visa. And yes, I agree on the problem solving and creativity.....Richard P. Feynman talked about teaching in Latin America, and how the students just memorized everything and didn't understand it.

cb1000rider wrote:If you're comparing naturalized engineers to engineers that are here on visa, that comparison isn't fair. The engineers with visas usually have sponsor employers and employers can be very picky about who they select from overseas. That is, you're comparing naturalized engineers to a very select group that got visas. I know great H1B engineers also, but I really don't think that the educational systems that they came from are necessarily better than ours.

I'm not sure it makes all that much difference. One of my best friends in my previous employment was an engineer from Lebanon. He had a masters degree and quit to pursue a Phd. His brother was also in the US getting a masters at Dartmouth. His brother went back to Lebanon because he saw himself and others like him being exploited as cheap labor....as all of them made substantially less than their American counterparts. But even if they were paid equally, the overall effect of importing lots of engineers from other countries is three fold: it suppresses salaries for all engineers, it reduces the appeal of engineering as a career for Americans (due to the lowered salaries), and it reduces the incentive for American engineers to pursue post-graduate education.

This is getting off topic, but:

We are not really "importing" engineers from foreign countries. We are importing engineering students. They may have an engineering degree from their native country, but most of the don't join the workforce until they get a graduate degree from a U.S. university. For some reason there are all types of grants and programs to study at U.S. universities. More than for native born citizens.

Once they finish school, very few want to return to their native country. The glut of these engineers is what suppresses salaries for all engineers and reduce the appeal of engineering as a career for Americans. I agree that it also reduces the incentive for American engineers to pursue post-graduate work.

There are some who suggest that we have a shortage of engineers, but I don't believe that. What we have is a shortage of engineers who will work for salaries much lower than the going rate for a qualified engineer. Some of the PhDs get jobs in academia and bring in more foreign students into their graduate programs and the cycle continues. This is nothing new. It's been going on for decades.

HB-1 visas? Don't get me started.

I completely agree. I turned down an offer for a job that was subsequently filled by a PHd from China. I highly doubt they paid her more than they offered me and I suspect they offered her less. And it also burns me that the citizens of Mexico get to attend Texas colleges and pay in-state tuition.

cb1000rider wrote:

WildBill wrote: There are some who suggest that we have a shortage of engineers, but I don't believe that. What we have is a shortage of engineers who will work for salaries much lower than the going rate for a qualified engineer. Some of the PhDs get jobs in academia and bring in more foreign students into their graduate programs and the cycle continues. This is nothing new. It's been going on for decades..

I can't speak to all Engineering. And I can't speak to PhDs.
I can speak to engineering technology. I don't see salary compression due to H1Bs or imported engineers.
TAMU data:
4-year bull degree, computer science, average salary is $65k.
4-year bull degree, computer engineering, average salary is $71k.
4-year bull degree, electrical engineering, average salary is $74k
4-year bull degree, petroleum engineering, average salary is $91k

The average student has 0 hours of real experience. Those salaries are pretty good, IMHO.
In technology, I see graduates get 50% more salary within 3 years if they're worth anything. 100k before 30 is no problem. I work with a couple of those kids..

VM - maybe I'm insulated from the rest of the engineering world... that very well could be. And the economy could crash again, that certainly hurts everyone.

And I have seen employers.. well, one employer take advantage of visa candidates. Paid them badly, worked them hard, and because of the geography and lack of competitive job market (Arkansas) there really wasn't much that person could do. That employer was the exception to the rule. In competitive markets, you've got to treat employees well..

The fundamental problem with your analysis is that we can't know what those salaries would be if we weren't bringing in engineers from other countries. Yes, I agree those salaries don't sound too bad --starting pay was in the $14K - $17K range when I graduated-- but relative to what? Back in 92 one of the engineers I worked with had a wife who was manager of a Target store. She was pulling down $90K, and had less work experience than he did --both had been out of college less than six years. He was probably pulling down $60K.

It's hard to judge salaries even within a particular industry. I happened to luck into an area where experienced engineers are, or at least were, in short supply. As a consequence my salary rose dramatically over a 5 to 10 year period. But there are people in the same industry with as much or more experience in different areas who make significantly less than I do. And in my field perhaps 30% of the engineers are from other countries. How much more would I be making if there were 30% fewer engineers available? I have no way of knowing, but the laws of supply and demand suggest it would be more than I'm making now.

VMI77 wrote:I have no way of knowing, but the laws of supply and demand suggest it would be more than I'm making now.

For those claiming education has improved, this plot of SAT scores should be enlightening. The plot shows a steady decline in scores from 1952 onward. The math decline has not been as precipitous as the decline in verbal ability and critical reading scores. There has been a six year decline in writing scores since the essay portion of the test was reintroduced in 2006. The bumps up are from score "recentering" and changes to the exam. The score recentering in 1995 essentially gave students a 100 point advantage over those taking the tests before 1995, and still, after a initial rise, scores have again started a downward trend.

The test has gotten easier over time, while the time allotted to take it has increased, making the decline seem less precipitous than it really is.

1901 Test

The test contained sections on English, French, German, Latin, Greek, history, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. The test was not multiple choice, but instead was evaluated based on essay responses as "excellent", "good", "doubtful", "poor" or "very poor"

1926 Test

...prepared by a committee headed by Princeton psychologist Carl Campbell Brigham, had sections of definitions, arithmetic, classification, artificial language, antonyms, number series, analogies, logical inference, and paragraph reading.

1928 Test

n 1928 the number of verbal sections was reduced to 7, and the time limit was increased to slightly under two hours. In 1929 the number of sections was again reduced, this time to 6. These changes in part loosened time constraints on test-takers. Math was eliminated entirely for these tests, instead focusing only on verbal ability.

1930-36 Test

In 1930 the SAT was first split into the verbal and math sections, a structure that would continue through 2004. The verbal section of the 1930 test covered a more narrow range of content than its predecessors, examining only antonyms, double definitions (somewhat similar to sentence completions), and paragraph reading. In 1936, analogies were re-added. Between 1936 and 1946, students had between 80 and 115 minutes to answer 250 verbal questions (over a third of which were on antonyms). The mathematics test introduced in 1930 contained 100 free response questions to be answered in 80 minutes, and focused primarily on speed.

1946 Test

Starting in 1958 time limits became more stable, and for 17 years, until 1975, students had 75 minutes to answer 90 questions.

BTW, it's now 54 questions in 70 minutes.

1980 Test

The inclusion of the "Strivers" Score study was implemented. This study was introduced by The Educational Testing Service, which administers the SAT, and has been conducting research on how to make it easier for minorities and individuals who suffer from social and economic barriers.

1994 Test

1994 also saw the introduction of calculators into the mathematics section for the first time in the test's history.

1995 Test

Scores awarded after 1994 and before October 2001 are officially reported with an "R" (e.g. 1260R) to reflect this change. Old scores may be recentered to compare to 1995 to present scores by using official College Board tables,[34] which in the middle ranges add about 70 points to Verbal and 20 or 30 points to Math. In other words, current students have a 100 (70 plus 30) point advantage over their parents.

Certain educational organizations viewed the SAT re-centering initiative as an attempt to stave off international embarrassment in regard to continuously declining test scores, even among top students. As evidence, it was presented that the number of pupils who scored above 600 on the verbal portion of the test had fallen from a peak of 112,530 in 1972 to 73,080 in 1993, a 36% backslide, despite the fact that the total number of test-takers had risen over 500,000


Certain high IQ societies, like Mensa, the Prometheus Society and the Triple Nine Society, use scores from certain years as one of their admission tests. For instance, the Triple Nine Society accepts scores of 1450 on tests taken before April 1995, and scores of at least 1520 on tests taken between April 1995 and February 2005

Mmm I love statistics. All the shart shows is the score. It doesn't show the number of test takers.

The percentage of student population taking the SAT has risen dramatically.

WildBill wrote: I am not sure what you mean by "engineering technology", maybe the degrees that you listed.

I mean on the technology side of engineering. Typically computers/software, things of that nature. We hire all of the graduates above, except for Petroleum.

WildBill wrote: I assume you got the salary data from a TAMU website. Since TAMU is one of the top engineering schools I would expect their graduates would command higher salaries.
Also I would think that since the economy in Texas is better than most states, salaries would be higher. I don't know, but I would think that most Aggies would prefer to stay in Texas after graduation.

TAMU is a public school. It's on par with UT in terms of quality of education. I consider MIT a top engineering school... But maybe it's towards the top of the list nationwide?
UT salaries are very similar. I don't have data on MIT or RICE, etc.
The Texas economy is better than most of the country, that's for sure...

For those claiming education has improved, this plot of SAT scores should be enlightening.

Who has made this claim?


Keep in mind, you are talking averages. Do you have a chart showing median scores?

How has demographics of the country changed over the same time period? What about the demographics of the test takers? What about a discussion of work ethic among school kids? What about parental involvement? What about the divorce rate? Has that had an impact? Single parent households? What about parents that have sued to have the public schools "teach" their mentally disabled children because they want to mainstream them and the courts have agreed it's the responsibility of the public schools to accommodate them? How has that impacted education and the costs? We have kids in our schools that have to have a one on one caregivers that works with special needs kids so they can be in a "normal" school environment. The district absorbs the cost for such accommodations.

Do you see the poor single parent households and minority families homeschooling or paying for private school if the public school system was totally abolished as some on here seem to think should happen? How many non-English speaking kids are in public schools and have to have separate classes, teachers and aids available to help them since they do not speak English? Do you not think that costs extra money?

It is so easy to just say abolish public schools because public schools are worthless wastelands turning out nothing but idiots and morons. But what is the answer? Who will provide the education/babysitting for those that can't afford to homeschool or go to private school? How will society deal with those that are to lazy or unwilling to seize the opportunities provided to them today and will be even more less inclined to homeschool or do private school.

For those that want public schools abolished, how in the world can you want all of us public school morons and idiots educating the future leaders of our country and industries?

It's not as simple as some of you seem to think it is. There are great improvements needed. What are the practical solutions? What have you done to be a part of the solution?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Mmm I love statistics. All the shart shows is the score. It doesn't show the number of test takers.

The percentage of student population taking the SAT has risen dramatically.

So, what you're saying is that the more students that take the test, the worse the scores are, so education is improving? Yeah, too bad that undermines your point and supports mine. When the now much easier test is taken by the top students the decline isn't as severe. When more students take the test, the scores get worse, indicating that the educational system is failing the majority of students. Top students do well in just about any environment because they're smart. And yes, the top top students are probably better at math than ever, though their knowledge outside the quantitative world is nothing to brag about.

My son is a math tutor. And he's not working with the children of poor families --the tutoring is fairly expensive. We were discussing the way math is taught in the public schools and it is absurd....and inconsistent to boot. They teach one screwed up method in middle school then expect these kids to understand the right method that they've never been taught, in high school, with other schools doing the reverse. Kids go from one school and find that what was right before is now wrong. The private schools in the area have started to adopt the Singapore method because Singapore produces the top scoring math students.

But hey, your kids did great, so never mind the rest of the kids.

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Mmm I love statistics. All the shart shows is the score. It doesn't show the number of test takers.

The percentage of student population taking the SAT has risen dramatically.

So, what you're saying is that the more students that take the test, the worse the scores are, so education is improving? Yeah, too bad that undermines your point and supports mine. When the now much easier test is taken by the top students the decline isn't as severe. When more students take the test, the scores get worse, indicating that the educational system is failing the majority of students. Top students do well in just about any environment because they're smart. And yes, the top top students are probably better at math than ever, though their knowledge outside the quantitative world is nothing to brag about.

My son is a math tutor. And he's not working with the children of poor families --the tutoring is fairly expensive. We were discussing the way math is taught in the public schools and it is absurd....and inconsistent to boot. They teach one screwed up method in middle school then expect these kids to understand the right method that they've never been taught, in high school, with other schools doing the reverse. Kids go from one school and find that what was right before is now wrong. The private schools in the area have started to adopt the Singapore method because Singapore produces the top scoring math students.

But hey, your kids did great, so never mind the rest of the kids.

What did the public school's admin and school board have to say when you discussed the Singapore Method with them?

VMI77 wrote: When the now much easier test is taken by the top students the decline isn't as severe. When more students take the test, the scores get worse, indicating that the educational system is failing the majority of students. Top students do well in just about any environment because they're smart. And yes, the top top students are probably better at math than ever, though their knowledge outside the quantitative world is nothing to brag about.

VM.. I like statistics. And you instantly covered my main objection - which would have been that the test has changed dramatically in 60 years. The asserting that the test has gotten "easier"- is that yours or is it fairly well documented?

You're smart enough in statistics to know that a decline in average test score doesn't necessarily mean that the educational system is failing the majority of students. It could mean that more less-qualified students are taking the test and that the average shifts. It could mean that as an entrance requirement for college, people who couldn't go to college 50 years ago are taking the test, because colleges have a different entry criteria for those candidates. After all, for the sake of "diversity" we allow people with lower test scores in if they meet the right demographics. The shift could be demographics based... There is more than one knob on this one. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that the graph you've given doesn't speak to me as such because other things are in play.

From the looks of it, math is the one thing that we don't have to worry about, but I'm more inclined to go against the data and agree with your son.

I checked out the Singapore math method on Wikipedia. Here's what I got.

"Singapore math (or Singapore maths in British English[1]) is a teaching method based on the national math curriculum used for kindergarten through sixth grade in Singapore.[2][3] It involves teaching students to learn and master fewer mathematical concepts at greater detail as well as having them learn these concepts using a three-step learning process.[2][3] The three steps are concrete, pictorial, and abstract. In the concrete step, students engage in hands-on learning experiences using concrete objects such as chips, dice, or paper clips.[4] This is followed by drawing pictorial representations of mathematical concepts. Students then solve mathematical problems in an abstract way by using numbers and symbols.[5]"

So, are you advocating that our federal government establish "national" curriculum? It works for Singapore.

mojo84 wrote:

For those claiming education has improved, this plot of SAT scores should be enlightening.

Who has made this claim?

Cedar Park Dad and CB1000rider

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, you are talking averages. Do you have a chart showing median scores?

No. Because the tests themselves and the scoring have changed dramatically over the past 100 years it's difficult to find reasonable comparisons. However, just note what the test was like in 1906, versus what it's like now. This plot only runs from 1952 onwards and tries to back cast the 1995 "recentering."

mojo84 wrote:How has demographics of the country changed over the same time period? What about the demographics of the test takers? What about a discussion of work ethic among school kids? What about parental involvement? What about the divorce rate? Has that had an impact? Single parent households? What about parents that have sued to have the public schools "teach" their mentally disabled children because they want to mainstream them and the courts have agreed it's the responsibility of the public schools to accommodate them? How has that impacted education and the costs? We have kids in our schools that have to have a one on one caregivers that works with special needs kids so they can be in a "normal" school environment. The district absorbs the cost for such accommodations.

I would judge everything you mention to be contributing factors to the decline but I also don't think you can entirely separate them from the educational system....and you most definitely can't separate some of them when you're talking about the impact of leftist dogma on the college education of teachers, which is a feedback loop into the public schools and subsequent decline.

mojo84 wrote:Do you see the poor single parent households and minority families homeschooling or paying for private school if the public school system was totally abolished as some on here seem to think should happen? How many non-English speaking kids are in public schools and have to have separate classes, teachers and aids available to help them since they do not speak English? Do you not think that costs extra money?

I've seen it done first hand. In Oklahoma our kid's best friends were from a homeschooling family whose income was below the poverty line. I don't think cost is an issue at all because you can get just about all the material you need very cheaply from public library book sales. Single parents would have a much harder time but that is an obstacle that can also be overcome. Our homeschooling group in Texas had many retired professionals, including school teachers, teaching groups of children. Some groups form and parents take turns teaching. I would have been happy to include a child with a single parent in our children's schooling, and given the fact that I'm sort of a scrooge, I imagine that there are a lot more people out there who would do the same. A significant portion of our home schooling group were teachers that were currently employed as teachers. It's also possible for families to pool resources and hire teachers for particular subjects. The internet makes it easier than ever to homeschool.

mojo84 wrote:It is so easy to just say abolish public schools because public schools are worthless wastelands turning out nothing but idiots and morons. But what is the answer? Who will provide the education/babysitting for those that can't afford to homeschool or go to private school? How will society deal with those that are to lazy or unwilling to seize the opportunities provided to them today and will be even more less inclined to homeschool or do private school.

It is easy to say that but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that as a matter of principle it's wrong to impose a financial burden on me because someone else decided to have children. It's not expected I pay for their food and clothing (well, didn't used to be anyway, seems to be evolving that way) so why should I be expected to pay for their education? If you can't afford to educate your kids, don't have them, and don't expect me to help pick up your tab.

That said, we're not starting from zero so you can't end the system without a transition. The public schools can be improved, I've made some suggestions up above, like eliminating 90% of those employees that don't teach in the classroom. Just read this today:

Residents demanded answers at an emergency meeting in Lawndale Tuesday night after a series of reports revealed an excessive amount of compensation for the superintendent of the Centinela Valley Union High School District.

KCAL9’s Dave Bryan reports that Jose Fernandez’s total compensation last year was $663,000, all for running a district of three high schools with only about 6,500 students.

The school district also floated a loan of more than $900,000 for Fernandez at 2 percent interest over 40 years at a time when he had already declared bankruptcy, Bryan reported.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/ ... ssive-pay/

Come on, is this what you want to pay for? The schools as they stand now are wealth redistribution centers fleecing the taxpayers.

mojo84 wrote:For those that want public schools abolished, how in the world can you want all of us public school morons and idiots educating the future leaders of our country and industries?

It's not as simple as some of you seem to think it is. There are great improvements needed. What are the practical solutions? What have you done to be a part of the solution?

To finish.....I went to public school in California and Texas...you calling me a moron? The school in Texas was substandard educationally but safe, the school in Cali was probably more advanced and with a fast track system (mainly due to the larger population), had fights, drug raids, locker searches, trash can fires, and you were risking a beat down if you used the school restroom. I preferred the school in Texas. However, I actually was taught very little in that Texas high school. Most of what I learned I learned studying and reading on my own. And I had to take some remedial math courses the summer before college to make up for the higher mathematics that weren't taught because in our small school only about four of us were interested --and I was the class Valedictorian.

I have participated in the public school system by judging science fairs and giving lectures from time to time. My experience tells me the bigger the city and the larger the school the more disrespectful and disinterested the students. This, btw, is also a problem....large schools...large student bodies, large class sizes, and urban values.

You're right that there is no simple solution, and I'll go a step further and say that no real improvement or reform will ever be implemented because the ruling class doesn't want informed thinkers, they want the vast majority of the population to be obedient serfs that are employable but will not challenge the status quo. The progressive "reformers" like Dewey created a system based on the works of BF Skinner and other behaviorists in operant conditioning to replace the classical model that produced great men like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington. Their objective was to make America a socialist country.

The clown we have in office now supposedly went to Harvard. That's a bug, not a feature.

mojo84 wrote:I checked out the Singapore math method on Wikipedia. Here's what I got.

"Singapore math (or Singapore maths in British English[1]) is a teaching method based on the national math curriculum used for kindergarten through sixth grade in Singapore.[2][3] It involves teaching students to learn and master fewer mathematical concepts at greater detail as well as having them learn these concepts using a three-step learning process.[2][3] The three steps are concrete, pictorial, and abstract. In the concrete step, students engage in hands-on learning experiences using concrete objects such as chips, dice, or paper clips.[4] This is followed by drawing pictorial representations of mathematical concepts. Students then solve mathematical problems in an abstract way by using numbers and symbols.[5]"

So, are you advocating that our federal government establish "national" curriculum? It works for Singapore.

I am totally against a Federal government standard. I don't even think there should be a State standard, though I could live with that. A Federal standard means teaching what the leftist urban "progressives" want taught, and the destruction of the Republic.

I'm absolutely for doing what works best. I have no problem with a local school district choosing to implement some other country's standard if it makes sense to do so. I don't believe one shoe size fits the entire country. Given the fact that this is a first world economic power with the world's most powerful military, you'd think maybe we'd do a better job than a country like Singapore. I'd guess one big difference is that in Singapore they're more interested in teaching math than a framework of "progressive" dogma. We've become self-indulgent, fat, decadent, and lazy. We're coasting on our laurels while they're trying to bring themselves up in the world.

I have used singapore math.....maybe it works for some, but for a dyslexic student it was death on toast.

If you want a good system for visual/kinetic learners (kids that are distracted and figity) I highly reccomend Math-u-see. We have had brilliant success with that program.

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Mmm I love statistics. All the shart shows is the score. It doesn't show the number of test takers.

The percentage of student population taking the SAT has risen dramatically.

So, what you're saying is that the more students that take the test, the worse the scores are, so education is improving? Yeah, too bad that undermines your point and supports mine.

It does neither actually. Historically only the cream of the crop could go to college. Nowdays your average kid is trying to go to one.
To be reflective of an actual trend you would have to hold the population groups and makeup constant.