1895 school exam, are we dumb?

[JLM]

"That was possible in the old days. These days it would be rare for somebody who doesn’t have high school diploma to be able to solve higher mathematics problems or converse in Latin, French or whatever"

Actually the reverse- there are so many more avenues to learning these days than there was even 30 years ago. There are more libraries and correspondence courses and of course the internet. A person can easily learn today, anything he puts his mind to. The only barrier is lack of desire.

 

[gerryh]

2 + 2 = the best sex you'll ever have.

 

[countryboy]

Science and technology form the spark for any new idea, any new project. The scientist studies a phenomena scientifically. Based upon his findings, the engineer applies the principle to practical application.

Well, let's see...where I come from, new ideas came from a variety of sources. In business, a good marketing effort will recognize a trend coming ... could be big or small. The marketing folks interpret these trends (usually called customer needs) and decide if they're worth pursuing. If they are, a new project is launched and the technical people (the scientists) are called in to explore the possibilities and determine which technologies (new or existing) may be required to turn the project into reality.

There are times where a scientist is left alone to explore scientific possibilities on his/her own, but it's a rare thing to do that in a corporation without some idea of customer/market information as a base to justify the R & D costs in the first place.

Government sponsored efforts (e.g., NASA) would be an exception, but if you're talking mainstream R & D, there are lots of things that have to happen to guide the scientists down the right path. One of them is the establishment of a budget so their salaries can be justified.

So the "spark" often comes from customers or the market (groups of customers) in the form of a need that has to be satisfied. As always, the development of anything successful is usually a large team effort involving more than just the scientists.

 

[countryboy]

Those people come later, after scientists and engineers. Without scientists and engineers, the entrepreneurs won't have any ideas to develop. The important thing is to study the phenomenon and come up with a practical application. Once that is done, an entrepreneur will inevitably come along, if not one, then another, if not him, then somebody else. But without the initial spark of science and technology, nothing is possible.

As I pointed out separately, the scientists and engineers would have a difficult time being so creative and worthwhile if they didn't have some money for purchasing the groceries. It costs money to "study applications" and that comes from the people who generate that money.

I think you're off the mark in more ways than one - the "initial spark" and the financing of the project(s)...the spark usually comes from a customer need through a good marketing effort, and the ability to allow the study to take place comes from money...which is usually generated through business operations, sometimes run by the entrepreneurs who hatched the idea for the business in the first place. It's a team effort - science, for the most part, is not a "stand-alone" proposition. None of the disciplines are...they all need each other to get moving and stay alive.

 

[countryboy]

These are all details, countryboy, you are simply quibbling. We have had this argument before. Look at the overall picture. The world population is healthier, wealthier than at any time in history and lives longer.

For some reason, I can't shake the picture out of mind of a team of scientists toiling away in a pharma lab somewhere, diligently trying to develop a new treatment for the diabetes epidemic, when in fact a decent diet and a healthier lifestyle would ease the problem, if not eliminate it altogether.

Given the setup, they HAVE to come up with something to justify their costs to the company, and the company HAS to sell lots of it - at high prices - to justify the R & D costs. It's just one possible example of science running slightly out of control, and the long term contribution to human well-being is questionable, at best.

 

[countryboy]

In USA they talk of founding fathers, it is just a figure of speech. But Trudeau may properly be called the founding father of Canada.

Being an "average" person, I didn't catch this little comment you slipped in earlier on. The "founding father of Canada?!?!?" Holeee mackerel! I can't believe you're serious about that one.

Everyone knows that title goes to none other Sir John A. McDonald, who coincidentally was not only a Scotsman, he was also a Conservative. Talk about a visionary with skills, he was it. We couldn't have asked for a better leader to take on the task of pulling the wilderness together into a functioning country, against odds that must have seemed impossible at the time.

You elite folks should study up on real history when you get a minute...not only will you set yourself straight with real facts, but you might even decide to improve your voting habits...which are currently holding Canada back from a majority government that would apply those good, old-fashioned values of Sir John and chart a new and even more exciting course for this country as we proceed into the 21st century.

Remember, if you take some of those Liberal values (only the good ones, please) and add common sense and a dash of "how to get things done", you will see that Conservative is the only way to go. "Right is right, and left is wrong."

And please quit spreading that nonsense about Trudeau...he may have been a perfectly good father to his kids, but he didn't father my country!

 

[Downhome_Woman]

That was possible in the old days. These days it would be rare for somebody who doesn’t have high school diploma to be able to solve higher mathematics problems or converse in Latin, French or whatever. If he has those gifts, these days he would get a university education.

University education is more accessible today compared to previous generations. There are more university spots available, more opportunities to get loans to finance the education. Besides, in the old days, one could get a good job without university education, that is very difficult today. So the examples you give would be rare in today’s world.

Why do you assume they didn't have access to a university education? You assume that my father did not have access to a university education - he did, as did his father , grandfather and great-grandfather - and further back. Rather than take advantage of the university education that was accessible both financially and physically to him, my grandfather chose to go to Canada (he was, by the way, fluent in seven languages and conversant in 13), and my father? the same education was open to him as well, he chose to do other things.
And that great-great-grandfather that could solve higher mathematical problems with a 6th grade education? While he may have lived in Newfoundland, he could have gone to university - if he had chosen.
Maybe a university education was unavailable to your family - it wasn't to mine.
Many people make the choice NOT to go to university - and doesn't seem to stifle their intellectual abilities, nor their desire to keep learning - and succeeding.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Definitely the scientists and engineers. Without them there will be no bridge. Without maintenance people, the bridge will exist at least for a short time."


I guess you never heard the story about the brain, the heart, the eyes, the hands and the rectum arguing about which was the most important.

The brain and the heart are the most important of them all, hands down. The reason is that a body can exist without the eyes, hands or the rectum (it won’t be easy, but it can be managed). The body absolutely cannot live without the brain or the heart.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"That was possible in the old days. These days it would be rare for somebody who doesn’t have high school diploma to be able to solve higher mathematics problems or converse in Latin, French or whatever"

Actually the reverse- there are so many more avenues to learning these days than there was even 30 years ago. There are more libraries and correspondence courses and of course the internet. A person can easily learn today, anything he puts his mind to. The only barrier is lack of desire.

Sure, a person can learn anything he wants. But try to get a good job these days without a university degree. It is very difficult. In the old days, a person could get a good job based upon high school diploma. Those days are long gone.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why do you assume they didn't have access to a university education? You assume that my father did not have access to a university education - he did, as did his father , grandfather and great-grandfather - and further back. Rather than take advantage of the university education that was accessible both financially and physically to him, my grandfather chose to go to Canada (he was, by the way, fluent in seven languages and conversant in 13), and my father? the same education was open to him as well, he chose to do other things.
And that great-great-grandfather that could solve higher mathematical problems with a 6th grade education? While he may have lived in Newfoundland, he could have gone to university - if he had chosen.
Maybe a university education was unavailable to your family - it wasn't to mine.
Many people make the choice NOT to go to university - and doesn't seem to stifle their intellectual abilities, nor their desire to keep learning - and succeeding.

I did not say anything about your father or your grandfather. But do you deny that in the old days they had far fewer education opportunities than we do today?

Perhaps, that is why in the old days it was possible to get a good job without university education. These days one needs a university (or at least Community College) degree for any worthwhile job.

 

[TenPenny]

These days one needs a university (or at least Community College) degree for any worthwhile job.

Quite so, quite so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, let's see...where I come from, new ideas came from a variety of sources. In business, a good marketing effort will recognize a trend coming ... could be big or small. The marketing folks interpret these trends (usually called customer needs) and decide if they're worth pursuing. If they are, a new project is launched and the technical people (the scientists) are called in to explore the possibilities and determine which technologies (new or existing) may be required to turn the project into reality.

What you are saying here in nothing new, countryboy. In the business world it is known as ‘market pull’ and ‘technology push’. You seem to think that the only innovation takes place by ‘market pull’, and that there is no such thing as ’technology push’.

Studies have shown that most of the time market pull doesn’t work. The reason for that is that science and technology does not obey Human commands, one cannot come up with a scientific principle or technological innovation at an order barked by the management.

If management identifies a particular demand in the market, they look around to see if there is a technological solution to the problem. For that, they look to scientists, to see if scientists have developed anything that technologists could incorporate into the solution. But they cannot order engineers to come up with a solution (market needs a plastic that stays liquid at 100 degrees C but evaporates at 110 degrees C, find one).

I did work in rubber technology for a few years. The management would dearly love to have a new elastomer, with greater wet skid resistance (good for braking) and lower rolling resistance (lower gas consumption) at the same time. Technologists have been singularly unsuccessful in finding one.

Contrary to what you may think, it is not as easy as management giving specifications to the engineers, and engineers coming up with a new plastic, or a new cell phone etc. It doesn’t work that way.

If you think that is how technology advances (manger gives the engineer an order and engineer fulfills it), you have a very poor understanding of science and technology indeed.

Most of the advances are made by technology push, very few by market pull.

 

[gerryh]

These days one needs a university (or at least Community College) degree for any worthwhile job.

Someone want to define "worthwhile job"?

 

[JLM]

Sure, a person can learn anything he wants. But try to get a good job these days without a university degree. It is very difficult. In the old days, a person could get a good job based upon high school diploma. Those days are long gone.

YOu don't need to attend University to get a degree, you just have to pass the exams that the board of Education sets. I worked for a guy who got his P. Eng. through Correspondence and was a hell of a lot better than any P.Eng I've seen who did attend University- this guy was both smart and had common sense, as well as being fairly humble.

 

[VanIsle]

VI - that's a good rant. I love it when you get PO'd and tell it like it is! Good post!

LOL - Doesn't always work out the way you expect. I happened to mention it to a "man and wife" team of customers today. Stated a pinch of my opinion about teachers skiing on a Pro D day. She is a teacher and he is a retired principal! Nothing like sticking one's big foot into one's big mouth! I backed down a little since it is not my store (wish it was). Wouldn't you know I would be the one to pick the very best couple. ;-)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There are times where a scientist is left alone to explore scientific possibilities on his/her own, but it's a rare thing to do that in a corporation without some idea of customer/market information as a base to justify the R & D costs in the first place.

Government sponsored efforts (e.g., NASA) would be an exception, but if you're talking mainstream R & D, there are lots of things that have to happen to guide the scientists down the right path. One of them is the establishment of a budget so their salaries can be justified.

Again, you have an imperfect appreciation as to how science works. Scientists do basic research, where they try to study fundamental concepts in science. Corporations do very little in terms of basic research. Most basic research is done at the universities, by the professors.

A professor writes a research proposal for a grant, usually to the government, but occasionally a corporation will sponsor a basic research proposal. In basic research, the scientist does not show an immediate practical application. He only has to show that he is studying a new scientific concept, a new scientific principle, that it has not been studied before. Then if the government has the money he will get his grant.

Now, a scientist may talk to corporations to get their feedback as to what kind of subject a scientist should study. Thus, if a company makes food emulsions (e.g mayonnaise, or salad dressing etc.), the scientist may decide to study the structure/property relationship of model emulsion (which may be prepared with organic solvents like benzene, and may not be food materials at all). But again, he is not going to show the corporation an immediate application to his research.

In short, a scientist does basic research, for that he takes directions from nobody, he is his own master. The research proposals are usually judged on scientific merit and relevance to the grant giving body (e.g if the proposal is to NIH, it better have something to do with biology or medicine).

In short, a scientist is not a puppet on a string manipulated by corporations as you seem to think.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So the "spark" often comes from customers or the market (groups of customers) in the form of a need that has to be satisfied. As always, the development of anything successful is usually a large team effort involving more than just the scientists.

This is the 'market pull' that I discussed. A market pull is rarely successful, most of the advances are made by technology push. If technology is not available, no amount of wishful thinking by the management is going to make it a reality.

 

[gerryh]

I still want to know what a "worthwhile job" is.........

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As I pointed out separately, the scientists and engineers would have a difficult time being so creative and worthwhile if they didn't have some money for purchasing the groceries. It costs money to "study applications" and that comes from the people who generate that money.

Sure it does. But as I pointed out before, when government gives grant to the scientists, they do not worry about the immediate practical application of the research. If they did that, there would be no research into subjects like the String Theory or Big Bang Theory. Where is the practical application, the immediate advantage? Indeed, any work on theoretical physics will be out.

As to engineers, what you say may be true in the corporate setting. If a corporation employs research engineers, their research will be highly focused, geared to the immediate needs of the corporation. However, plenty of engineering research is done at the universities. There again, there is usually no immediate utility for the research.

Thus, one fellow I know is doing some work in two phase flow, flow of liquid and gas mixed together. Basically he mixes water with air, pushes it through a pipe and tries to analyze the properties, the flow behavior. Now, where is the practical utility? But he got the grant because it is a relevant subject for research, two phase flow occurs many times in practice, and it is important to understand the basic principles involved in it. Now, a corporation probably won’t sponsor research like that, but government would. His findings may potentially be useful to many industries.

Just because government gives the grant money does not mean that it can play scientists and engineering professors like puppets on a string, you have got a very wrong impression of how research is conducted.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

YOu don't need to attend University to get a degree, you just have to pass the exams that the board of Education sets. I worked for a guy who got his P. Eng. through Correspondence and was a hell of a lot better than any P.Eng I've seen who did attend University- this guy was both smart and had common sense, as well as being fairly humble.

OK, let us look at P. Eng. These days to work as an Engineer, you must be certified by the appropriate engineering institute (or similar licensing body). My understanding is that they won't even consider anybody for certification unless they have an engineering degree.

Did your boss have the certification of the proper engineering institute? These days he won't get a job without one. And these days he probably won't be considered for certification without an engineering degree.