Discussion:
A test for SRCers.....
(too old to reply)
straydog
2004-08-04 15:30:01 UTC
Permalink
OK, guys, here it is:

Statistics:

Distribution of scientists by age:

USA Russia

Below 39 Below 39
48 % 27%

Over 60 Over 60
7% 21%

-----------------------
Now, what you must do is analyze these data and answer the following
questions (approximately or specifically) and add your own speculations.

1. Why were these statistics determined?
2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?
3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?
4. What do you think of these data?

--------------
After we get some comments, I'll mention where these data come from and
add my own 'answers' to my questions above.

You are permitted and encouraged to come up with your own questions and
answer them, too, based on the data.

Art Sowers
email is invalid
http://scijobs.freeshell.org
R. Martin
2004-08-05 00:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
USA Russia
Below 39 Below 39
48 % 27%
Over 60 Over 60
7% 21%
-----------------------
Now, what you must do is analyze these data and answer the following
questions (approximately or specifically) and add your own speculations.
OK, I'll play.
Post by straydog
1. Why were these statistics determined?
The CIA measures everything. :-)
Post by straydog
2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?
You can't prove anything with statistics. A hypothesis consistent
with the numbers is that real spending supporting scientific research
dropped over 1945-1980 time period in the FSU while it increased
in the U.S. during that time.
Post by straydog
3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?
It is bad for scientists in the U.S. In Russia it doesn't matter.
Which reminds me of a joke I just heard today. E-mail me if you
want to hear it, Art.
Post by straydog
4. What do you think of these data?
See my sig.

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.
Old Pif
2004-08-05 03:07:25 UTC
Permalink
OK, let me try:

First fill the blanks:

USA Russia

Below 39 Below 39 Graduated after
48 % 27% 1988

Between 39 and 60 Graduated between
45% 52% 1967 and 1988


Over 60 Over 60 Graduated before
7% 21% 1967

1. Why were these statistics determined?

That actually puzzles me. The countries are not rivals anymore and
basically incomparable. The GDP of Russia is a fraction of that of
Microsoft. Looking forward for the explanations.

2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?

It reflects the difference in scientific carriers in both countries.
Age 39 is a cutting age for finding postdoc position, which is the
most common for scientific employment in the US, which is why roughly
half of scientific population concentrates below this line.

In Russia postdocs do not exist - science is still a profession.
However, taking a typical age of graduation in Russia as 23 it is easy
to notice that those below 39 graduated after 1988. The date is very
close to the USSR had collapsed when government funding of research
drastically dropped and naturally people simply can not make living
working in science. I would guess that if an age of 35 has been chosen
the difference would be even more dramatic. For the same reason much
less of young people enroll in science programs after Soviet Union
collapsed.

In the age bracket 39-60, in the US people either settle in tenure
faculty positions or leave the field such that by the age 60 only very
well established stay. In Russia on the other hand, all scientific
positions are permanent and driving force out of science has different
(mostly economical) nature. So, at the end, by the age 60 more people
stay. On the top of that, all of them were trained between 1967 and
1988 - the years of great prestige for scientific profession and huge
government funding of military programs - it is hard for them
psychologically and professionally to switch for something else.

3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?

It is bad for science in both places but for different reasons. I
believe that destruction of research as a profession causes a lot of
social problems in the US, the most dramatic being the loss of
interests to science from the native population. The quality of
scientific publications has dropped as well due to pressure to publish
of die, which has converted scientific journals into garbage dumps.

In Russia, where they don't pay even to policemen, scientists have hit
the rock bottom of misery. Policemen can take bribes at least but who
would bribe a scientist?

4. What do you think of these data?

Nothing.

Old Pif
Post by straydog
USA Russia
Below 39 Below 39
48 % 27%
Over 60 Over 60
7% 21%
-----------------------
Now, what you must do is analyze these data and answer the following
questions (approximately or specifically) and add your own speculations.
1. Why were these statistics determined?
2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?
3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?
4. What do you think of these data?
--------------
After we get some comments, I'll mention where these data come from and
add my own 'answers' to my questions above.
You are permitted and encouraged to come up with your own questions and
answer them, too, based on the data.
Art Sowers
email is invalid
http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Gangsta NoMore
2004-08-05 10:21:17 UTC
Permalink
***@my-deja.com (Old Pif) wrote in message

I wanted to post my comments on why there is a such a distribution by
age among the scientists of Russia and of the USA, but you, Old Pif,
was quicker than I was. And you gave more thoughtful replies than I
would do. Now I would like to comment on your comments.
... postdoc position, which is the
most common for scientific employment in the US,
So why is the postdoc most common scientific employment in the US ?
The answer is that they are an optimum between the most skill at the
lowest cost. But what is a postdoc ? This is a PhD graduate with 0-6
years of postdoctoral employment. (Most of the fresh phD graduates are
clueless). I would not say that they are terribly experienced. The
rockets and laser and other stuff were discovered/developed by more
mature scientists, that is by those with 10-20 years of experience. So
my conclusion is that nowdays the American science is primitive.
... those below 39 graduated after 1988. The date is very
close to the USSR had collapsed when government funding of research
drastically dropped and naturally people simply can not make living
working in science. I would guess that if an age of 35 has been chosen
the difference would be even more dramatic.
I am the person who entered science just before it turned to be an
unfavourable occupation. I moved to the West. But my former
co-students who stayed lived through the difficult times, and now live
off the grants... going overseas for research... their life is not
bad. There are some money in the system. BTW, this is the reason why
there are many people over 60 y.o. in the Russian science -- they all
were in the positions of the head of departments whne the Russian
(Soviet) science started to collapse in the beginning of the 90s. They
had nowhere to go in terms of earning money (one could not buy even
food for the scientist's salary those days). They hoped that this
crisis of the Russian economics was temporary, and in few years they
would regain their power as leaders of prestigeous places of
employment again. I think this transitional period lasted for too long
-- about 10 years. There are (some) money in the system again. And
these are old farts who can use the advantages of being in the "top"
again.

***
straydog
2004-08-07 03:22:59 UTC
Permalink
See my comments below, see my "answers" post made separately.
Post by straydog
USA Russia
Below 39 Below 39 Graduated after
48 % 27% 1988
Between 39 and 60 Graduated between
45% 52% 1967 and 1988
Over 60 Over 60 Graduated before
7% 21% 1967
1. Why were these statistics determined?
That actually puzzles me. The countries are not rivals anymore and
basically incomparable. The GDP of Russia is a fraction of that of
Microsoft.
Well, Yukos (the oil producer) made about $7 billion on exported oil in the last few
years. Not as much as Microsoft, but look where Yukos came from (no infrastructure,
still very young compared to MS, etc.). $ 7 bill is not to be sneezed at.
Post by straydog
Looking forward for the explanations.
See below....
Post by straydog
2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?
It reflects the difference in scientific carriers in both countries.
Age 39 is a cutting age for finding postdoc position, which is the
most common for scientific employment in the US, which is why roughly
half of scientific population concentrates below this line.
In Russia postdocs do not exist - science is still a profession.
I think there is a 'comparable' position: the interval between the 'candidate' degree
(which is really less than a PhD [classes but no thesis or dissertation] where one does
actual research and develops a portfolio of about ten papers, then stands before a
committee and takes an oral exam on this research, then is awarded something like a DSc.
I think this is also part of the European system.
Post by straydog
However, taking a typical age of graduation in Russia as 23 it is easy
to notice that those below 39 graduated after 1988. The date is very
close to the USSR had collapsed when government funding of research
drastically dropped and naturally people simply can not make living
working in science. I would guess that if an age of 35 has been chosen
the difference would be even more dramatic. For the same reason much
less of young people enroll in science programs after Soviet Union
collapsed.
The article, see below, says enrollment and graduations are up considerably.
Post by straydog
In the age bracket 39-60, in the US people either settle in tenure
faculty positions or leave the field such that by the age 60 only very
well established stay. In Russia on the other hand, all scientific
positions are permanent and driving force out of science has different
(mostly economical) nature. So, at the end, by the age 60 more people
stay. On the top of that, all of them were trained between 1967 and
1988 - the years of great prestige for scientific profession and huge
government funding of military programs - it is hard for them
psychologically and professionally to switch for something else.
3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?
It is bad for science in both places but for different reasons. I
believe that destruction of research as a profession causes a lot of
social problems in the US, the most dramatic being the loss of
interests to science from the native population. The quality of
scientific publications has dropped as well due to pressure to publish
of die, which has converted scientific journals into garbage dumps.
My overall criticism is a little different: I'd call it the 'bureacratization' of
science that kills it. Now, instead of science, the big institutions are running a
money-grubbing rat race.
Post by straydog
In Russia, where they don't pay even to policemen, scientists have hit
the rock bottom of misery. Policemen can take bribes at least but who
would bribe a scientist?
There are many resources available to some scientists that have barter value. As was
explained to me, some may have access to alcohol in fairly large quantities. This is for
barter on the black market. There are other 'resources'.
Post by straydog
4. What do you think of these data?
Nothing.
Old Pif
Post by straydog
USA Russia
Below 39 Below 39
48 % 27%
Over 60 Over 60
7% 21%
-----------------------
Now, what you must do is analyze these data and answer the following
questions (approximately or specifically) and add your own speculations.
1. Why were these statistics determined?
2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?
3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?
4. What do you think of these data?
--------------
After we get some comments, I'll mention where these data come from and
add my own 'answers' to my questions above.
You are permitted and encouraged to come up with your own questions and
answer them, too, based on the data.
Art Sowers
email is invalid
http://scijobs.freeshell.org
Old Pif
2004-08-07 16:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Comments to some minor points (basically have nothing to do with the
Post by straydog
Well, Yukos (the oil producer) made about $7 billion on exported oil in the last few
years. Not as much as Microsoft, but look where Yukos came from (no infrastructure,
still very young compared to MS, etc.). $ 7 bill is not to be sneezed at.
Yukos had inherited (sealed by the Western standards) infrastructure
of Gasprom - government oil production and exporting company. Then
divide 7 bil by the "last few years" and compare it to the Microsoft
annual revenue.
Post by straydog
I think there is a 'comparable' position: the interval between the 'candidate' degree
(which is really less than a PhD [classes but no thesis or dissertation] where one does
actual research and develops a portfolio of about ten papers, then stands before a
committee and takes an oral exam on this research, then is awarded something like a DSc.
I think this is also part of the European system.
Russian (and some other European degrees descended mostly from the
German system) includes three exams: humanitarian (philosophy, economy
and political science in one), foreign language and a specialty. All
the three must be passed before the date of thesis defense, which is
the central point of acquiring, the Candidate degree. The defense is
public and the panel between 10 and 15 experts votes at the end.
Amount of publication sufficient for the degree is not specified and
varies from field to field and from institution to institution -
minimum 3 for postgraduates in universities and up to 10-12 for people
in the research institutes. Two pier reviewers and one pier review
organization that closely evaluate the work are mandatory and present
their reports to the panel. The most important difference with the US
system is that the result of this evaluation is at the final stage
reviewed and approved by a central organization in Moscow, which
supposes to guarantee a uniform quality of all degrees across the
country.

The point, however, was not that. The point is that scientists in
Russia get into permanent employment at the very early stage of their
carriers. They don't stay in postdoc limbo and then find themselves
unemployable by any organization between two oceans. The scientific
jobs are very poorly paid but if a person is put up consciously with
the more than modest life stile or belongs to a wealthy family he/she
can stay in science up to retirement.
Post by straydog
My overall criticism is a little different: I'd call it the 'bureaucratization' of
science that kills it. Now, instead of science, the big institutions are running a
money-grubbing rat race.
This is more than a valid point by all means. The mechanics is very
simple: what is in fact the major difference between large and small
companies? The big corporations are (include university in this
definition) the best and most effective way to keep a profit margin.
In other words it is the most effective way to put into the pocket of
shareholders/owners/boards as much money as possible giving out to
employees as little as possible. As soon as the spending for R&D by
the movements have become a permanent economic phenomenon
organizations that consume the money and benefit from them have
emerged. Very quickly individuals and small companies lost the race
and at the end substantial part of the federal funding now is wasted
(go the pocket of scientific bureaucrats) rather than used for actual
research. The situation on scientific job market is a derivative of
that: an optimum between a necessity to achieve at least something and
maximize the profit margin.

Old Pif
straydog
2004-08-07 23:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Comments to some minor points (basically have nothing to do with the
Post by straydog
Well, Yukos (the oil producer) made about $7 billion on exported oil in the last few
years. Not as much as Microsoft, but look where Yukos came from (no infrastructure,
still very young compared to MS, etc.). $ 7 bill is not to be sneezed at.
Yukos had inherited (sealed by the Western standards) infrastructure
of Gasprom - government oil production and exporting company. Then
divide 7 bil by the "last few years" and compare it to the Microsoft
annual revenue.
Post by straydog
I think there is a 'comparable' position: the interval between the 'candidate' degree
(which is really less than a PhD [classes but no thesis or dissertation] where one does
actual research and develops a portfolio of about ten papers, then stands before a
committee and takes an oral exam on this research, then is awarded something like a DSc.
I think this is also part of the European system.
Russian (and some other European degrees descended mostly from the
German system) includes three exams: humanitarian (philosophy, economy
and political science in one), foreign language and a specialty. All
the three must be passed before the date of thesis defense, which is
the central point of acquiring, the Candidate degree. The defense is
public and the panel between 10 and 15 experts votes at the end.
Amount of publication sufficient for the degree is not specified and
varies from field to field and from institution to institution -
minimum 3 for postgraduates in universities and up to 10-12 for people
in the research institutes. Two pier reviewers and one pier review
organization that closely evaluate the work are mandatory and present
their reports to the panel. The most important difference with the US
system is that the result of this evaluation is at the final stage
reviewed and approved by a central organization in Moscow, which
supposes to guarantee a uniform quality of all degrees across the
country.
The point, however, was not that. The point is that scientists in
Russia get into permanent employment at the very early stage of their
carriers.
Well, that is at least partly true. What I have no information about is the ratio of new
jobs to the newly produced PhDs (or whatever you call it) for each year. I know from
anecdotal conversations with a few Russians I had contact with that: i) it was not so
easy to get a job, even there, if you got all of your credentials, and ii) there were a
lot of scientist wives who had PhDs (yes!!) and what were they doing? Being housewives!
I'm sure, if it were possible, they would like to have had a job (but then, someone had
to go running around all day finding out which store had any food left [from my personal
experience, you would be in trouble if you went to the grocery stores late in the
day...maybe a forerunner of the Japanese 'just-in-time' inventory management]).

But, clearly, if they do find a position, then its likely to be permanent for all time
(at least until, for example, the economy collapses). However, I also know that they,
too, had 'temporary' positions and they did not pay as well.

They don't stay in postdoc limbo and then find themselves
Post by Old Pif
unemployable by any organization between two oceans. The scientific
jobs are very poorly paid but if a person is put up consciously with
the more than modest life stile or belongs to a wealthy family he/she
can stay in science up to retirement.
Agreed.
Post by Old Pif
Post by straydog
My overall criticism is a little different: I'd call it the 'bureaucratization' of
science that kills it. Now, instead of science, the big institutions are running a
money-grubbing rat race.
This is more than a valid point by all means. The mechanics is very
simple: what is in fact the major difference between large and small
companies? The big corporations are (include university in this
definition) the best and most effective way to keep a profit margin.
Its more than that. The top institutions are all in a kind-of economic war to:
i) grow as much as possible, and ii) improve their ranking in terms of
grant/contracts/gifts compared to others.
Post by Old Pif
In other words it is the most effective way to put into the pocket of
shareholders/owners/boards as much money as possible giving out to
employees as little as possible. As soon as the spending for R&D by
the movements have become a permanent economic phenomenon
organizations that consume the money and benefit from them have
emerged. Very quickly individuals and small companies lost the race
and at the end substantial part of the federal funding now is wasted
(go the pocket of scientific bureaucrats) rather than used for actual
research. The situation on scientific job market is a derivative of
that: an optimum between a necessity to achieve at least something and
maximize the profit margin.
In institutions, the factors of importance are: i) prestige (as measured by endowment,
grant/etc cash flow, size of campus, size of student body, etc., but not quality), and
ii) with increasing _quantities_, the institution passes on _increases_ in salary for
the administrators/bureaucrats/deans/provosts/and all the assistant/vice/associate
deans, and their entourages.

In commercial corporations, what I see is a big disconnect between how the underlings
are paid and what they are expected to do compared to what the executives get paid (vast
increases each year in compensation packages, and less and less accountability, and
less real work).

Art Sowers
Post by Old Pif
Old Pif
Gangsta NoMore
2004-08-08 04:26:27 UTC
Permalink
I know from anecdotal conversations with a few
Russians I had contact with that: i) it was not so easy to get a job,
... someone had to go running around all day finding out which
store had any food left [from my personal experience, you would be in
trouble if you went to the grocery stores late in the day...maybe a
forerunner of the Japanese 'just-in-time' inventory management]).
From what you describe I can deduce that you are talking about Moscow.
You see, the government did supply the food into the Moscow shops. And
there was not enough of food so that there were limits for how much
every shop was permitted to sell in a day. And this is on the
background of almost no food supply in the rest of the SU. Muscovites
believed that Moscow _was_ the USSR. I guess just like New-Yorkers
believe that there is no America besides New York.

I've heard that it was hard for people to obtain scientific jobs in
Moscow -- for the reason of too many people. However, if people of
certain ethnic background were in the occupation of science, they
promoted their children to go to science and become a part of the
"network". This is the mechanism how the people of certain ethnicity
survived since the hinted loss of own territory 2000 years ago. So if
someone from the former SU in conversation with you takes for granted
that it was possible to receive a permanent scientific job in
Moscow/USSR, the chances are he/she belongs to that ethnic network.
***

P.S. BTW, yesterday I watched the movie "Stepford Wives", and a
certain ethnicity was mentioned. I take it for the sign of things to
come. The US imperia is crumbling. When there is not enough of money
for everyone, then the majority traditionally start bashing the
minority, because it is them who is responsible for the lack of money
in the state coffers and for the lack of economic opportunity. Maybe
something will happen with the US soon (and with the rest of
English-speaking Western world with them, too).
v***@math.uic.edu
2004-08-08 14:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gangsta NoMore
I've heard that it was hard for people to obtain scientific jobs in
Moscow -- for the reason of too many people. However, if people of
certain ethnic background were in the occupation of science, they
promoted their children to go to science and become a part of the
"network". This is the mechanism how the people of certain ethnicity
survived since the hinted loss of own territory 2000 years ago. So if
someone from the former SU in conversation with you takes for granted
that it was possible to receive a permanent scientific job in
Moscow/USSR, the chances are he/she belongs to that ethnic network.
And what ethnicity that would be?

--
Vladimir
Gangsta NoMore
2004-08-08 03:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
My overall criticism is a little different: I'd call it
the 'bureacratization' of science that kills it.
"Beaurocartization" is just the consequence. The cause is that there
is not enough of money for everyone. No new structure for distribution
of funding will solve the problem of unemployment of scientists.
Period.

***
straydog
2004-08-08 23:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gangsta NoMore
Post by straydog
My overall criticism is a little different: I'd call it
the 'bureacratization' of science that kills it.
"Beaurocartization" is just the consequence. The cause is that there
is not enough of money for everyone. No new structure for distribution
of funding will solve the problem of unemployment of scientists.
Period.
***
Allow me to explain my label. The reason for this is that science (research) is funded
differently than, say, our military which has no competition and the budget process
involves much much less 'grant proposals' and just weak justifications followed by an
astronomical budget request. Hence, no sweat in military jobs.

Also, the military does not have to 'compete' for budget like scientists getting grants.
In industry, the competition is for money from the CEO and the competition is for the
perception that if times go bad,..."Please, Mr. CEO, don't cut my budget [or terminate
my program, and me]."

Thus, the so called "investigator-originated" research (i.e. you need a grant) means
that the scientist really has two jobs: i) fundraiser, and ii) scientist, and actually
#1 is more important than #2. There is a third job: sucking up to the power structure.
i.e. fear that the chair, dean, director can terminate you even though you have funding
and are publishing.

Art
http://scijobs.freeshell.org

rick++
2004-08-05 14:47:11 UTC
Permalink
You'd also want to compile percentage of the population in scientific work.
Youd find young Russians to very low. They either move abroad for opportunities
or go into more lucrative professions. There was a recent article in Nature
that said graduates of of top Russian universities are highly valued by
international employers.
straydog
2004-08-07 03:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick++
You'd also want to compile percentage of the population in scientific work.
Youd find young Russians to very low.
See my ANSWER post. Enrollment and graduations are up considerably in recent years.

They either move abroad for opportunities
Post by rick++
or go into more lucrative professions. There was a recent article in Nature
that said graduates of of top Russian universities are highly valued by
international employers.
They are valued in terms of hiring them to work AND stay in Russia and that way the
salary is very cheap compared to having them come to, say, the USA.
straydog
2004-08-07 03:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Please re-read the 'contest' then the 'answers' below.....
Post by straydog
USA Russia
Below 39 Below 39
48 % 27%
Over 60 Over 60
7% 21%
-----------------------
Now, what you must do is analyze these data and answer the following
questions (approximately or specifically) and add your own speculations.
1. Why were these statistics determined?
2. What do these statistics prove (or show)?
3. Is it good for scientists or not? Where?
4. What do you think of these data?
--------------
After we get some comments, I'll mention where these data come from and
add my own 'answers' to my questions above.
You are permitted and encouraged to come up with your own questions and
answer them, too, based on the data.
Art Sowers
email is invalid
http://scijobs.freeshell.org==========================================
Where that data came from:

"A Renaissance for Russian Science"
subtitle: "Student enrollments are up, and
multinationals are chasing grads"
in Business Week, Aug 9, 2004, p. 58-59.

Most of the article is about what is
going on in science in Russia.

"As has happened in three of the past five years,
a Russian university won top honors at the 2004
ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest,
an IBM-sponsored competition that pits university
teams from around the world against each other in
solving complex problems. Universities in the ex-
Soviet Union took 10 of the top 30 slots this
year"

1. It would be interesting to know how other
countries ranked, how many applicants they had
from each, and how big the source pool was.
2. Is it surprizing, considering that Chess is a
national pastime?
3. Anyone, anywhere -- especially here in the USA-
- hear about these IBM-sponsored contests?

The article also gave some historical background
on higher education in Russia/USSR in the past.
Much of the article discussed how:

a) Intel Corp began working with half a dozen
Russian universities starting in 1997. Intel now
employs 500 Russian engineers and plans to hire
500 more this year. This is a thousand
sci/eng/tech jobs NOT made available to US
citizen-college graduates.

b) Russia is graduating 11% more scientists, engs,
mathematicians, and physicists this year than last
year. I don't know the comparable figure for the
USA. This year they are graduating 225,831. Intel
hiring 500 more is a drop in the bucket.

c) For every Russian university position there are
now six applicants for every position where in the
mid 1990s, there were just two applicants per
position. They are seeing a glut, too.

The reason for the comparison statistics is to
argue for more funding for positions at Russian
universities (because so many graduates are
pursuing more lucrative opportunities in private
industry [big surprize, eh?]).

Art S.
Old Pif
2004-08-08 04:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by straydog
b) Russia is graduating 11% more scientists, engs,
mathematicians, and physicists this year than last
year. I don't know the comparable figure for the
USA. This year they are graduating 225,831. Intel
hiring 500 more is a drop in the bucket.
c) For every Russian university position there are
now six applicants for every position where in the
mid 1990s, there were just two applicants per
position. They are seeing a glut, too.
The reason for the comparison statistics is to
argue for more funding for positions at Russian
universities (because so many graduates are
pursuing more lucrative opportunities in private
industry [big surprize, eh?]).
Art S.
Well, the best way to present this puzzle would be to set it as a
paradox specifying the low percentage of the young guys in science and
an increase of graduates. Because of natural delay the statistics for
this group reflects the situation even earlier than 1990 and whatever
increase they have recently does not change this figure very much.

But in general what it means is that Russia finally has joined the
club of outsourcing destinations alongside with India and China. If
you analyze the increase of graduates for India you observe a huge
spike apparently connected with the recent increase of outsourcing
money from here. All possible kinds of phony institutes and
universities bake graduates like crazy using very valuable finding
that American management make its judgment based mostly on
stereotypes. The white middle age guy just can not program Java - just
can't - on the other hand the native language in India is Java and so
anybody over there is by default is better than anyone from over here.

So, Russians are basically on the right track. They have all chances
to kick Indians and Chinese asses and bite the substantial piece of
American pie. Look at this:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bmaed/CassidyPresentation.pdf
specifically slide #5.

Old Pif
leslie
2004-08-08 06:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Old Pif (***@my-deja.com) wrote:
:
: But in general what it means is that Russia finally has joined the
: club of outsourcing destinations alongside with India and China...
:

Yup...

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/1445671
Russia Becoming IT Powerhouse

"August 13, 2002
By Drew Robb

For many years, India has been the poster child of the offshore
software development industry. Many of the Fortune 500 have been
quietly beating a path to Indian vendors to reduce software
development costs and speed up time to market. As well as their
much-publicized work on Y2K and mainframe maintenance, these companies
also take on Java and Oracle assignments.

But a serious rival now is emerging, one with the resources and
determination to take on India -- Russia.

The technology sector in Russia achieved $3 billion in revenue last
year, up 19% from the previous year. Offshore software development now
is a large slice of that total, growing at an estimated rate of 50% a
year.

U.S. giants like Dell, Intel, Siemens and Motorola have huge Russian
development centers. And Boeing, GE, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Citibank,
the U.S. Department of Energy and many others now are turning to
Russia for all manner of complex software tasks..."


http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2DC21525
Soviet technology legacy draws offshore work - Computerworld

The original link wrapped to 2 lines:

http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/
outsourcing/story/0,10801,82761,00.html
Soviet technology legacy draws offshore work - Computerworld

"Soviet technology legacy draws offshore work
Russia is emerging as an R&D center for software and
telecommunications firms

By Patrick Thibodeau
JULY 03, 2003

Content Type: Story
Source: Computerworld

The U.S. IT industry is tapping into the technological prowess of the
former Soviet Union, which is emerging as a research and development
center for software and telecommunications firms, a new report by
Aberdeen Group Inc. has found.

But the country's software development skills, which can be accessed
at a cost well below U.S. rates, is also appealing to managers of
non-IT firms. Craig Maccubbin, vice president of technology at online
travel service LasVegas.com LLC, is one of them..."


--Jerry Leslie
Note: ***@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
straydog
2004-08-08 22:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Pif
Post by straydog
b) Russia is graduating 11% more scientists, engs,
mathematicians, and physicists this year than last
year. I don't know the comparable figure for the
USA. This year they are graduating 225,831. Intel
hiring 500 more is a drop in the bucket.
c) For every Russian university position there are
now six applicants for every position where in the
mid 1990s, there were just two applicants per
position. They are seeing a glut, too.
The reason for the comparison statistics is to
argue for more funding for positions at Russian
universities (because so many graduates are
pursuing more lucrative opportunities in private
industry [big surprize, eh?]).
Art S.
Well, the best way to present this puzzle would be to set it as a
paradox specifying the low percentage of the young guys in science and
an increase of graduates. Because of natural delay the statistics for
this group reflects the situation even earlier than 1990 and whatever
increase they have recently does not change this figure very much.
Or, as I see it, its the same thing trying to happen as happened in the USA in the late
'60s through 70s and 80s: i) expansion of college programs, ii) expansion of campus
size, iii) expansion to accomodate, eventually and in the limit, all of our high school
graduates to get a college education (without asking why).
Post by Old Pif
But in general what it means is that Russia finally has joined the
club of outsourcing destinations alongside with India and China. If
you analyze the increase of graduates for India you observe a huge
spike apparently connected with the recent increase of outsourcing
money from here.
Money from HERE began moving OVER THERE before 2000. There were articles in the computer
trade rags. Now, this year and last year, the articles in the computer trade rags are
starting to ask: will there be any jobs left for Americans?

Bear in mind that many big corporations have set up R&D labs in both India and China.

All possible kinds of phony institutes and
Post by Old Pif
universities bake graduates like crazy using very valuable finding
that American management make its judgment based mostly on
stereotypes. The white middle age guy just can not program Java - just
can't -
Norman Matloff would not agree with this.

on the other hand the native language in India is Java and so
Post by Old Pif
anybody over there is by default is better than anyone from over here.
So, Russians are basically on the right track. They have all chances
to kick Indians and Chinese asses and bite the substantial piece of
I think the actual situation is that Russians, Indians, and Chinese (and there is some
software work in Brazil, too!!!!) will all, collectively, kick American IT asses into
unemployment.
Post by Old Pif
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bmaed/CassidyPresentation.pdf
specifically slide #5.
Old Pif
Loading...