America Dumbs Down

[Junior]

Do I intimately know the process? No....but, I know enough people who work in the research community who talk about it and I don't think they would disagree with me too much in a private conversation.

 

So let's say I am a professor at Nebraska and I want to submit a grant to the NIH to study Salmonella pathogenesis. (I am not a professor at Nebraska and I do not study Salmonella, this is purely an example)

 

First, I have to write the proposal. Length depends on the agency you are applying to, but I believe the NIH is currently at 12 pages, not including citations. I have to include the amount of money I'm asking for and a detailed budget for how I plan to spend that money. Postdoc or grad student salaries, new equipment, animal experiments, etc. If the budget looks funky, your grant is going nowhere. These people know how much money it takes to do most research, and if you are trying to juice the numbers, they will not treat you kindly.

 

After it is written, I send it to the University's grants and contracts office, where they decide if I may or may not submit the proposal in the first place.

 

At this point, I submit the grant to the NIH and I put it into a specific "study section". For a grant on Salmonella pathogenesis, I would submit to the NIH study section on bacterial pathogenesis. A study section is a peer review group that consists of investigators from other universities, the NIH research wing, the USDA, private industry experts, etc. These people all have expertise in bacterial pathogenesis, but not necessarily Salmonella. A subset of the study section (maybe 3 or 4 people) are assigned to read my grant and assign a score. If it scores well enough it will get discussed when the study section gets together in a random DC hotel. If it doesn't score well in that initial review, it is "triaged", not discussed further. All proposals receive feedback from those initial reviewers, outlining what they liked and didn't like from the proposal. This is how I can learn to make my proposal better if it is triaged, and I can resubmit later.

 

If they discuss my grant, then the entirety of the study section talks the pros and cons of my proposal and rate it against the rest of the grants in the section. If, by chance, my PhD advisor were in the study section, he would be obligated to remove himself from the room when my grant was being discussed. Only after discussion of the merits of my proposal is it rated against the others in the section. It is given a score, but that study section itself doesn't decide if a grant is funded or not. Ultimately, the funding boils down to what they call "paylines". After the NIH budget comes out, different divisions are given their amount they can spend on new proposals. So your grant may score very well, but not be funded due to budget constraints. Something like 10 - 15% of grants submitted actually get funding, depending on the year.

 

The only benefit to being on the study section is that the NIH pays for your flight, hotel, and meals. That's it. You aren't given a salary or stipend. The reason you agree to participate is for the benefit of the scientific community.

 

If I submit a proposal in February, the study section will review it in May or June, and I will know in July or August if it is funded. If it is one of the lucky ones, I'll get the money in January, at the earliest. So the process takes nearly a year, assuming you get funded on the first shot (which rarely happens).

 

So, yea, I suppose theoretically, it is possible that someone might be in the study section that has financial motivation to fund a specific grant. But given the amount of people within that study section, one person being the champion of a poor proposal isn't going to get very far.

[BigRedBuster]

One researcher I know is about 55 years old. She has worked her entire life from the time she was in college through her doctorate and through her research career trying to find one specific gene. A couple years ago she finally found it. She is now on the speech circuit teaching all these other scientists about this gene she spent her life finding. She has worked at a University research center for most of her adult life doing her work. Her research has been primarily funded by grants.

 

First off, she literally is one of the smartest people I have met and her research may produce some amazing results when it is put together with other technology.

She is doing EXTREMELY well financially. I'm pretty sure she makes well into the 6 figures. Someone in the process (University) obviously finds her research extremely valuable and are rewarding her for that.

 

Like I have said before in this thread, I can't think of any changes I would make to the system. I think they do a good job of attempting to take money out of the equation. However, it will almost always be there to some degree.

[HSKR]

 

Do I intimately know the process? No....but, I know enough people who work in the research community who talk about it and I don't think they would disagree with me too much in a private conversation.

 

So let's say I am a professor at Nebraska and I want to submit a grant to the NIH to study Salmonella pathogenesis. (I am not a professor at Nebraska and I do not study Salmonella, this is purely an example)

 

First, I have to write the proposal. Length depends on the agency you are applying to, but I believe the NIH is currently at 12 pages, not including citations. I have to include the amount of money I'm asking for and a detailed budget for how I plan to spend that money. Postdoc or grad student salaries, new equipment, animal experiments, etc. If the budget looks funky, your grant is going nowhere. These people know how much money it takes to do most research, and if you are trying to juice the numbers, they will not treat you kindly.

 

After it is written, I send it to the University's grants and contracts office, where they decide if I may or may not submit the proposal in the first place.

 

At this point, I submit the grant to the NIH and I put it into a specific "study section". For a grant on Salmonella pathogenesis, I would submit to the NIH study section on bacterial pathogenesis. A study section is a peer review group that consists of investigators from other universities, the NIH research wing, the USDA, private industry experts, etc. These people all have expertise in bacterial pathogenesis, but not necessarily Salmonella. A subset of the study section (maybe 3 or 4 people) are assigned to read my grant and assign a score. If it scores well enough it will get discussed when the study section gets together in a random DC hotel. If it doesn't score well in that initial review, it is "triaged", not discussed further. All proposals receive feedback from those initial reviewers, outlining what they liked and didn't like from the proposal. This is how I can learn to make my proposal better if it is triaged, and I can resubmit later.

 

If they discuss my grant, then the entirety of the study section talks the pros and cons of my proposal and rate it against the rest of the grants in the section. If, by chance, my PhD advisor were in the study section, he would be obligated to remove himself from the room when my grant was being discussed. Only after discussion of the merits of my proposal is it rated against the others in the section. It is given a score, but that study section itself doesn't decide if a grant is funded or not. Ultimately, the funding boils down to what they call "paylines". After the NIH budget comes out, different divisions are given their amount they can spend on new proposals. So your grant may score very well, but not be funded due to budget constraints. Something like 10 - 15% of grants submitted actually get funding, depending on the year.

 

The only benefit to being on the study section is that the NIH pays for your flight, hotel, and meals. That's it. You aren't given a salary or stipend. The reason you agree to participate is for the benefit of the scientific community.

 

If I submit a proposal in February, the study section will review it in May or June, and I will know in July or August if it is funded. If it is one of the lucky ones, I'll get the money in January, at the earliest. So the process takes nearly a year, assuming you get funded on the first shot (which rarely happens).

 

So, yea, I suppose theoretically, it is possible that someone might be in the study section that has financial motivation to fund a specific grant. But given the amount of people within that study section, one person being the champion of a poor proposal isn't going to get very far.

 

 

http://journalstar.com/news/local/unl-faculty-salaries-beat-inflation-but-uncertainty-looms/article_2b101f2a-b731-5960-90a6-1c5f0112cbad.html

 

In 2009 your average salary would be $110,100.

[Junior]

 

 

Do I intimately know the process? No....but, I know enough people who work in the research community who talk about it and I don't think they would disagree with me too much in a private conversation.

 

So let's say I am a professor at Nebraska and I want to submit a grant to the NIH to study Salmonella pathogenesis. (I am not a professor at Nebraska and I do not study Salmonella, this is purely an example)

 

First, I have to write the proposal. Length depends on the agency you are applying to, but I believe the NIH is currently at 12 pages, not including citations. I have to include the amount of money I'm asking for and a detailed budget for how I plan to spend that money. Postdoc or grad student salaries, new equipment, animal experiments, etc. If the budget looks funky, your grant is going nowhere. These people know how much money it takes to do most research, and if you are trying to juice the numbers, they will not treat you kindly.

 

After it is written, I send it to the University's grants and contracts office, where they decide if I may or may not submit the proposal in the first place.

 

At this point, I submit the grant to the NIH and I put it into a specific "study section". For a grant on Salmonella pathogenesis, I would submit to the NIH study section on bacterial pathogenesis. A study section is a peer review group that consists of investigators from other universities, the NIH research wing, the USDA, private industry experts, etc. These people all have expertise in bacterial pathogenesis, but not necessarily Salmonella. A subset of the study section (maybe 3 or 4 people) are assigned to read my grant and assign a score. If it scores well enough it will get discussed when the study section gets together in a random DC hotel. If it doesn't score well in that initial review, it is "triaged", not discussed further. All proposals receive feedback from those initial reviewers, outlining what they liked and didn't like from the proposal. This is how I can learn to make my proposal better if it is triaged, and I can resubmit later.

 

If they discuss my grant, then the entirety of the study section talks the pros and cons of my proposal and rate it against the rest of the grants in the section. If, by chance, my PhD advisor were in the study section, he would be obligated to remove himself from the room when my grant was being discussed. Only after discussion of the merits of my proposal is it rated against the others in the section. It is given a score, but that study section itself doesn't decide if a grant is funded or not. Ultimately, the funding boils down to what they call "paylines". After the NIH budget comes out, different divisions are given their amount they can spend on new proposals. So your grant may score very well, but not be funded due to budget constraints. Something like 10 - 15% of grants submitted actually get funding, depending on the year.

 

The only benefit to being on the study section is that the NIH pays for your flight, hotel, and meals. That's it. You aren't given a salary or stipend. The reason you agree to participate is for the benefit of the scientific community.

 

If I submit a proposal in February, the study section will review it in May or June, and I will know in July or August if it is funded. If it is one of the lucky ones, I'll get the money in January, at the earliest. So the process takes nearly a year, assuming you get funded on the first shot (which rarely happens).

 

So, yea, I suppose theoretically, it is possible that someone might be in the study section that has financial motivation to fund a specific grant. But given the amount of people within that study section, one person being the champion of a poor proposal isn't going to get very far.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/unl-faculty-salaries-beat-inflation-but-uncertainty-looms/article_2b101f2a-b731-5960-90a6-1c5f0112cbad.html

 

In 2009 your average salary would be $110,100.

And?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Like many have echoed: the system isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

[Landlord]

 

 

Anyways, back to the original subject - how long can our country keep up this trend? At some point something has to give, right?

 

[Creighton Duke]

I don't see why you had to quote yourself to ask this again, but to answer the question, no, something does not have to give. Like everything else in the country, the inequality gap will continue to widen. Education inequality is no exception as school systems in many areas decline in quality, college and university education costs continue to outpace the rate of inflation (not to mention college campuses becoming increasingly toxic enviornments for young men, leading to lower enrollments), immigrants who are already behind are unable to catch up to their peers and ultimately either stay behind or drop out....the list goes on. We will eventually revert back to the kind of population in line with colonial era - early 20th century in terms of educational attainment: elites with advanced education, degrees, etc. and the masses with poor K-12 schooling and little postsecondary education.

 

EDIT: Not to mention increasing student loan interest rates. This trend will probably not subside and students will increasingly use them on less-esteemed and for-profit degrees (little value), ultimately leading to the next debt/loan bubble. Get ready!

[Landlord]

The colonial era culminated in a revolution

[Creighton Duke]

^^^^^

....and 130+ more years of education (amongst other things) inequality...

 

All I'm saying is, enjoy the decline.

[BigRedBuster]

I don't see why you had to quote yourself to ask this again, but to answer the question, no, something does not have to give. Like everything else in the country, the inequality gap will continue to widen. Education inequality is no exception as school systems in many areas decline in quality, college and university education costs continue to outpace the rate of inflation (not to mention college campuses becoming increasingly toxic enviornments for young men, leading to lower enrollments), immigrants who are already behind are unable to catch up to their peers and ultimately either stay behind or drop out....the list goes on. We will eventually revert back to the kind of population in line with colonial era - early 20th century in terms of educational attainment: elites with advanced education, degrees, etc. and the masses with poor K-12 schooling and little postsecondary education.

 

EDIT: Not to mention increasing student loan interest rates. This trend will probably not subside and students will increasingly use them on less-esteemed and for-profit degrees (little value), ultimately leading to the next debt/loan bubble. Get ready!

 

 

Naaa....education in the US isn't nearly as bad as what some people want to make it out to be. There are some things that can be improved on but it is no where near the disaster level that some people want everyone to believe.

[Creighton Duke]

 

I don't see why you had to quote yourself to ask this again, but to answer the question, no, something does not have to give. Like everything else in the country, the inequality gap will continue to widen. Education inequality is no exception as school systems in many areas decline in quality, college and university education costs continue to outpace the rate of inflation (not to mention college campuses becoming increasingly toxic enviornments for young men, leading to lower enrollments), immigrants who are already behind are unable to catch up to their peers and ultimately either stay behind or drop out....the list goes on. We will eventually revert back to the kind of population in line with colonial era - early 20th century in terms of educational attainment: elites with advanced education, degrees, etc. and the masses with poor K-12 schooling and little postsecondary education.

 

EDIT: Not to mention increasing student loan interest rates. This trend will probably not subside and students will increasingly use them on less-esteemed and for-profit degrees (little value), ultimately leading to the next debt/loan bubble. Get ready!

 

 

Naaa....education in the US isn't nearly as bad as what some people want to make it out to be. There are some things that can be improved on but it is no where near the disaster level that some people want everyone to believe.

 

Explain

 

Also, where do you live and where did you go to school?

[Landlord]

^^^^^

....and 130+ more years of education (amongst other things) inequality...

 

All I'm saying is, enjoy the decline.

 

 

Well that's what I was asking. How much further are things going to keep sliding until something happens and people actually decide it's no longer acceptable?

 

 

Also I mean my high school education was pretty much a joke but it was still a joke by middle-class white nebraskan standards. I don't even know if I would believe my eyes if I walked into some schools in other parts of the country.

[Creighton Duke]

 

^^^^^

....and 130+ more years of education (amongst other things) inequality...

 

All I'm saying is, enjoy the decline.

 

 

Well that's what I was asking. How much further are things going to keep sliding until something happens and people actually decide it's no longer acceptable?

 

 

Also I mean my high school education was pretty much a joke but it was still a joke by middle-class white nebraskan standards. I don't even know if I would believe my eyes if I walked into some schools in other parts of the country.

 

Emerging economies will continue to grow and challenge U.S. hegemony. Brain drain of STEM students (many of whom will be foreign born and domestically educated). Multitude of worthless degrees being issued. Student loan bubble. Feminization of K-12 education/over-medication of K-12 students...I don't see an end to the decline.

 

EDIT: and you're correct. Nebraska has one of the best K-12 state school systems in the country. Head to the South or Southwest if you really want to see a "joke" of an educational system.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I don't see why you had to quote yourself to ask this again, but to answer the question, no, something does not have to give. Like everything else in the country, the inequality gap will continue to widen. Education inequality is no exception as school systems in many areas decline in quality, college and university education costs continue to outpace the rate of inflation (not to mention college campuses becoming increasingly toxic enviornments for young men, leading to lower enrollments), immigrants who are already behind are unable to catch up to their peers and ultimately either stay behind or drop out....the list goes on. We will eventually revert back to the kind of population in line with colonial era - early 20th century in terms of educational attainment: elites with advanced education, degrees, etc. and the masses with poor K-12 schooling and little postsecondary education.

 

EDIT: Not to mention increasing student loan interest rates. This trend will probably not subside and students will increasingly use them on less-esteemed and for-profit degrees (little value), ultimately leading to the next debt/loan bubble. Get ready!

 

 

Naaa....education in the US isn't nearly as bad as what some people want to make it out to be. There are some things that can be improved on but it is no where near the disaster level that some people want everyone to believe.

 

Explain

 

Also, where do you live and where did you go to school?

 

It just isn't a disaster like some want us to believe.

 

We have a system of education that works. Yes, there are some areas of the country that need improved on. My brother lives in Louisiana and refused to send his kids to public schools for good reason. He sent them to private schools and they did well. Yes, the public schools need improved down there but, the entire country is no where close to as bad as Louisiana schools.

 

Some things that get over looked when comparing country to country. Now, I know this isn't the case with every country we are compared to but it is the case when looking at countries like china. The goal in the US is to educate every child. This is a good goal and it should stay the same. That isn't the case in China. In China, they take a top certain percentage of kids and educate them. The rest go basically uneducated and are put to work at very young age.

This does several things:

 

a) Imagine what HS would be like in the US if you chopped out the bottom 50% of kids. What about the bottom 80% of kids? The education process would be GREATLY improved for the remaining top kids. They would have fewer discipline problems, the curriculum could be much tougher and they could go through the subjects much faster covering more information.

 

b) Imagine what testing results would be like if only tested the top 20-30% of students? Think our test results would be much higher?

 

Here are a couple good articles talking about room for improvement but it is no where close to the alarming problem some make it out to be:

 

LINK

 

Here is an interesting article. I find the note at the bottom even more interesting:

 

LINK

 

 

With the U.S. scores below the average of other participating countries, suggestions about how to improve student performance will almost inevitably follow the release of the PISA results. But aJanuary 2013 report from the Economic Policy Institute (and therefore not reflecting any analysis of the 2012 PISA testing data but including data evaluation from the 2009 test), found that conclusions drawn from international test comparisons can often be oversimplified and exaggerated. It suggests making meaningful policy decisions about the U.S. educational system based on the data alone is ill advised without a more comprehensive study of the results and methodology.

 

Now, I believe the goal the US has for educating everyone is the right way to go. But, it really is difficult to compare country to country when other countries don't have the same goal.

 

I also read a very good article one time on the difference between the asian student and the American student. In essence, it explained how the average student going through a school such as in China will end up being better at reciting data and information. The average student from the US will be better at problem solving and critical thinking.

 

Here is a Huffpo op/ed piece talking about this.

 

Now, like I said, there is always room for improvement. Here are some issues that I think need addressed:

 

a) Equality of education - we need to keep improving education in areas where it stinks. My nieces in Louisiana should be able to get as good of education in their public schools as my kids can in Nebraska or Iowa. This unfortunately manifests itself many times in minorities. To fix this, I'm not convinced it's necessarily a money issue. Throwing more and more money at the issue isn't going to solve it.

 

b) Cost of higher education is over the top ridiculous compared to what it was when I was in college. I am a firm believer that this needs to be addressed in a major way. I would like to see a comprehensive study done as to why college education is skyrocketing faster than inflation. I know it's partly due to states funding higher education less but this has gone on for well over 20 years. I can't believe there isn't other factors affecting it also.

 

As far as higher education goes, we still have a great higher education system. Every year we have a very large number of foreign students coming to study at American universities. Why? Because they can get a great education here.

 

So....yes, there are areas of needed improvement. But, we aren't swimming in a quagmire of despair like some people want us to believe.

 

PS....I went to school in central Nebraska and my children started their education in Iowa and now are back in central Nebraska. I had nieces educated in private schools in Louisiana, public schools in Pennsylvania and public schools in Colorado. All (I believe) received very good educations that set them up for success.

[Creighton Duke]

^^^^

You make some very good points,

 

Ironically, you draw attention to Louisiana. LA has become a case study in K-12 education turnaround, particularly in NOLA.

 

 

 

That's a giant leap for New Orleans since the final pre-Katrina performance scores, when the Orleans Parish school system ranked next to last. Moreover, only 5 percent of New Orleans students now attend failing schools, as opposed to 65 percent in 2005.

http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2013/10/school_performance_improves_ac.html

 

..although, I agree, that the school are poor and I'm sure that you and your relatives went to excellent schools in the states listed (generally strong school systems).

 

You talk about the other countries and how only a certain number of students in those countries go on to university and higher educations. China and India ARE prime examples. These are emerging economies (in China's case, now the world's largest) that have bought into the importance of focusing on a manufacturing economy. They don't need every person to have years of education if they are going to be workers in this kind of economy.

 

On the other hand, look at countries with even more collectively educated populations than the U.S. (much of Europe, Western AND Eastern). They are experiencing much of the slowing economic growth as they, as well as the U.S. have resorted to service sector economies. It's great that you got all that education...to serve me Starbucks coffee. Students would be better served taking a technical school track, going to trade or technical school and learning a universally recognized and needed skill or trade.

 

You want equality in education and we have "Teach for America" programs that send the "best and the brightest" to these areas. What happens? The "best and the brightest" get burned out quickly and go into consulting or policy work instead.

 

Higher education is getting too expensive, but this is a great way to cut out portions of the population who should not be attending college. High performing, underprivileged students will ALWAYS be given scholarships and grants; middle-of-the-road students should start saving early, stay in-state, and accept student loans.

 

We do have some great universities, but, as I said, foreign students come here, get their education,,,,and leave. I think figuring out how to reduce this brain drain and keeping those minds here would do wonders.

 

 

The notion that everyone should go to college is laughable, but I do think that K-12 students should be given better opportunities than many have, due to not faults of their own. I'm not sure of the solution at this point, though.