Ivy League schools

[HS Thomas]

Britain's best are opting for and are being lured by Ivy League Schools in the US. As University fees in Britain are expected to rise the trend will continue and may triple the current 5,000 in the next few years.
Good sign or not ? Pros and cons ?
[ January 18, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Tim Baker]

Well the more that sod off to america the more places in the top universities here I guess, shame they have to come home again though. I doubt tuition fees will make much difference though, the prices being about quadrupled in the US to the top rates allowed under the new bill.

[Bela Bardak]

I'm not sure about that at all, Tim. Depends upon what they do when they get there.
There has been an enormous brain-drain from Europe to the US, and this only exacerbated it. Something like 500,000 of Europe's scientists are working in the US, which has to be extremely worrying from a European standpoint. Where is the R&D going to come from if they all are in the US? Are European companies just going to buy it from the US?

[Steven Broadbent]

I know a few academics here ( Oxford ) and it's true many end up going to the US.
Why ? 3-5 years to complete a Phd and then if you are lucky you can get a three year lectureship starting at 18-20 k , renewed every year. Career path for academics in UK stinks.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:
I'm not sure about that at all, Tim. Depends upon what they do when they get there.
There has been an enormous brain-drain from Europe to the US, and this only exacerbated it. Something like 500,000 of Europe's scientists are working in the US, which has to be extremely worrying from a European standpoint. Where is the R&D going to come from if they all are in the US? Are European companies just going to buy it from the US?

Most companies with huge R&D are multinationals, they can equally do their R&D in any country and then they sell their products to the whole world.

[Natalie Kopple]

Do not be worried. If the U.S. keeps offshoring its high paying jobs and R&D to low income countries, I am sure all the European scientists will go back to Europe pretty soon.

[Billy Tsai]

what are some ivy league schools in britian for IT?

[Joy Jade]

hi Bill,
I just want to let you know that I emailed you on this site and it indicates that it is unread still. Pls. check your profile.
Thanks.

[HS Thomas]

The current trend is to recruit them straight from school. The Ivy League Schools are actively targeting them. These kids are possible Oxbridge students who are opting to go to the US. And they aren't departing in any small numbers either.

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
The current trend is to recruit them straight from school. The Ivy League Schools are actively targeting them. These kids are possible Oxbridge students who are opting to go to the US. And they aren't departing in any small numbers either.

My understanding is that they have Oxbridge grades and activities but often aren't accepted to the very best schools because of the UK government policy vis students from private schools.
The Ivies are at least as good as the best the UK has to offer. The sticker price is higher than in the UK, but financial aid often brings it down a lot.
Besides, where would you prefer to go to college? Bristol or Harvard?

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Most companies with huge R&D are multinationals, they can equally do their R&D in any country and then they sell their products to the whole world.

So Europe benefits from the research without having to pay for it? Very good. Let's not hear any more complaints about the disparity in military technology between the US and Europe.
There is more to it than the multinationals. Consider Silicon Valley. Consider the biotech startups. Even when Europeans have an edge (such as with GM) what happens? The EU countries outlaw it and the scientists head out across the Atlantic. In the US we call that shooting yourself in the foot!

[Steven Broadbent]

Britain has a long tradition of invention and innovation - then cocking it all up by not capitalising on it!

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

So Europe benefits from the research without having to pay for it? Very good. Let's not hear any more complaints about the disparity in military technology between the US and Europe.

Actually you'll find it's the exact opposite. Everyone pays for the research through the price of the products which come out of it. The beneficiaries are the tax system of the country which gets to tax the scientists wages and the earnings of the company.

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

There is more to it than the multinationals. Consider Silicon Valley. Consider the biotech startups. Even when Europeans have an edge (such as with GM) what happens? The EU countries outlaw it and the scientists head out across the Atlantic. In the US we call that shooting yourself in the foot!

Of course, lets just allow things because they are new science, who cares if they are good or safe. Cloning here we come, woo woo!

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Of course, lets just allow things because they are new science, who cares if they are good or safe. Cloning here we come, woo woo!

Quite right. Far better to study the matter for a number of years before allowing the scientists (or their students or the students of their students) to proceed. Heathrow expansion is the model here (50 years and counting....).
Problem is the detestable scientists who insist on going to the US where they can continue their work less impeded.
What is clearly needed is global regulation of science (and tax rates, and military spending, etc....). To keep the US from doing things the EU countries don't approve of!

[Tim Baker]

I'm sorry if I implied that I care if the US decides to clone people or not. Maybe it's a good thing so you can have an infinate number of george bushes to be the president until the end of time. Feel free to keep all the scientists who want to work on cloning, gm crops, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And whilst you are eating your genetically engineered foods sitting around your family table with your 5 spare clones I'm sure you'll have a good old giggle at us backward europeans eating natural foods with just conventional families.

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
I'm sorry if I implied that I care if the US decides to clone people or not. Maybe it's a good thing so you can have an infinate number of george bushes to be the president until the end of time. Feel free to keep all the scientists who want to work on cloning, gm crops, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And whilst you are eating your genetically engineered foods sitting around your family table with your 5 spare clones I'm sure you'll have a good old giggle at us backward europeans eating natural foods with just conventional families.

Now, now Tim. In fact you have touched upon one of the major disagreements between the scientific community and GW Bush, on the issue of cloning techniques. Bush and the Congress have put limits on what scientists in the US can do with cloning research and upon the use of stem cells. For ethical reasons. It may be that Britain is more liberal in this particular sphere than the US.
European attitudes toward GM are medieval, OTOH.

[Bela Bardak]

Time magazine on European brain-drain

But complaints like those of Claude All�gre, the former French Education Minister who heads the Paris VII geochemical lab, are all too common. He decries France's anachronistic "Soviet" system, in which control is centralized and researchers must run a bureaucratic obstacle course, whether to buy expensive equipment or order basic office supplies. "I'm planning on moving to the U.S. indefinitely because I want to continue my research," says All�gre. "I can't do so in the current conditions."

[Tim Baker]

No wonder the U.S. has 78% more high-tech patents per capita than Europe, which is especially weak in the IT and biotech sectors

Yeah thats a great meassure of science :roll: I wonder if it includes the patents on credit card sized handheld computers, or having personal domain names.

[HS Thomas]

Well I believe the attraction is that in the IVYLS the staff to student ratio is some sensible figure and the academia are peppered with Nobel Prize winners. That is difficult to match over in Britain.
Art students may fare better in Britain/Europe. Blur soundtracks played to NASAs launch programs, Damian Hirst might even be allowed to paint a few blobs on subsequent rockets I hear

[HS Thomas]

Fees in public schools have risen to �20,000 a year on average.
The hike is due to rise in NI contributions and other employment legislation.
State schools costs have also risen by 10%.
Doesn't anyone think this is illogical to compete on the state-of-the-art facilities when they should concentrate on the cheaper - but more important aspect of teaching - inspiring students.
Won't this work even better ?

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Doesn't anyone think this is illogical to compete on the state-of-the-art facilities when they should concentrate on the cheaper - but more important aspect of teaching - inspiring students.

I don't think it's easy to measure student inspiration. How do you suggest doing it?
Personally, I don't think that's the right metric either. Do you remember what helped you select schools? I work with students on a weekly basis and have some sense of how they evaluate places. In no particular order...
Reputation / Ranking
Ivy+ schools still have big names and draw students. Rankings like US News and World Reports are considered and those measure on factors like student/faculty ratio and endowment, among others.
Location / Size
This is moot point since most schools can't move, and changing school size is difficult and long term.
Facilities
Yes, they do care. Modern buildings, look better than run-down ones. Even if the student is a history major, a sparkling new science center makes the school look modern, high-tech, and committeed to the campus and it's residents. Perhaps this is just image, but it matters. This also includes sports centers, dorms, student union, and other facilities.
Majors
Obviously this can be gross (e.g. MIT versus Swathmore) or fine (CMU versus Harvey-Mudd).
Somewhat interestingly, students do not or rarely consider starting salaries, faculty reputation, alumni services, or business reputation when selecting a school. (There are, of course, exceptions. I'll bet some google searching can find some specific data.)

But these are all interlinked. A school which builds a new facility can attract better faculty, who in turn can help the school's reputation in the academic/research community, bringing in further funding for the school. Why is it some schools spend so much on their sports programs? Because it brings in alumni donations. The reality is, schools are for-profit businesses with non-profit status. They aren't making arbitrary choices, but rather evaluate based ona similar ROI functions, just with different parameters. If the new facilities don't work, they'll stop building them.
--Mark

[HS Thomas]

All the above will just leave the student feeling that they cannot succeed without all the frills, IMO.
Is that creating the right environment for measuring success ? A Student sufficiently inspired can create their own path to success without the frills. With practical help from the schools of course. You wouldn't want students who'd never want to move out!
[ January 22, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]