Danish Law Would Discourage Future Nobel Prize Winners From Seeking Work

After the American Century

The Danish government has proposed rules for admission to the country that would discriminate against the vast majority of the world's PhDs. Notably, the new rules would favor only two of those who received the Nobel Prize in 2010. The restrictive regulations that the right-wing government has proposed would give bonus points to anyone with a degree from one of the world’s top twenty universities, as determined by the London Times annual poll. Restricting the list to just the top 20 schools is a serious mistake. It should include at least the first 200 schools, especially since none of the Danish universities are anywhere near the top twenty. The rather nasty implication is that foreigners  (or the Danes themselves!) with Danish PhDs are not really good enough.

In the London Times, DTU is ranked 122, Aarhus 167, and Copenhagen 177. As a group the Danish universities have fallen in the rankings considerably in recent years.

The danger of excluding Nobel Prize winners is by no means a hypothetical exercise. A few years ago, one of this year's winners, Konstatin Novselov was offered a position at the University Copenhagen, but his admission to the country became so snarled in red tape that he went to get his Ph.D. in Holland, at the University of Nijmegen. Just how many top quality doctoral students and faculty are lost in this way? Some never apply in the first place, because Denmark has become known as a nation whose government creates problems for non-citizens.

The list below includes the universities that the 2010 Nobel Prize winners either attended or now teach in.  I have put in parenthesis each school’s position in the London Times world ranking. Note that seven of the universities associated with this year’s winners are not even in the top 200 universities, much less the top 20.

Carnegie Mellon University (20)

Edinburgh University (40)

Essex University (not in the first 200)

Hokkaido University (not in the first 200)

Jilin University (China) (not in the first 200)

London School of Economics (86)

Madrid University (not in the first 200)

Manchester University (87)

MIT (3)

Nijmegen University (not in the first 200)

Northwestern University (25)

Peking Normal University (not in the first 200)

Purdue University (106)

Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka  (not in the first 200)

University of Delaware (159)

University of Tokyo (26)

University of Wales (not in the first 200)

The world’s top 20 Universities according to the London Times

1            Harvard University        USA

2            California Institute of Technology           USA

3            Massachusetts Institute of Technology    USA

4            Stanford University            USA

5            Princeton University            USA

6            University of Cambridge       United Kingdom           

6            University of Oxford             United Kingdom           

8            University of California Berkeley   USA           

9            Imperial College London  United Kingdom           

10          Yale University   USA           

11          University of California Los Angeles    USA

12          University of Chicago       USA           

13          Johns Hopkins University    USA

14          Cornell University            USA

15          Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland           

15          University of Michigan            USA           

17          University of Toronto            Canada           

18          Columbia University            USA           

19          University of Pennsylvania            USA

20          Carnegie Mellon University, USA

See also World University Rankings, 2011- 2012, elsewhere on this blog (October, 2011)

Perils of a Point System for Immigrants to Denmark

After the American Century

Danish politicians, particularly those on the right side of the political spectrum, are toying with the idea of introducing a point system for immigration. The idea is to admit applicants for residence in Denmark based on points that reward such things as advanced education, mastery of Danish before arrival, a strong knowledge of English, and specific skills.  The uneducated, and especially the illiterate, would be pretty much excluded under this system, unless they were excellent football players. The idea clearly is to attract those who can enrich the country and keep out those who would be a drain on its resources.

A related idea being discussed is to make new residents wait for several years before they are eligible for unemployment and some social services. People would earn points toward full membership in the welfare state after  two or even three years. This is a seriously flawed idea. Why should someone who is highly educated and skilled want to come to a country that will treat them as a second-class citizen for years? Danish society will not have paid for their education or training, yet it will immediately benefit from their contribution and from their taxes. It is hard to see any good reason for such a rule, or any way that such a rule can help attract the talented.

Furthermore, the logic of such rules could spread to the Danes themselves. Why should a new university graduate qualify for unemployment before he or she has worked for three years, just like the skilled immigrant? The only difference between them is that the native Dane has already cost society quite a large sum, so, logically, the native Dane should contribute for much longer than just two or three years before eligible for any benefits. I am not advocating this idea, merely pointing out that if the political calculus becomes that of only giving benefits to those who have earned them, then many unlucky Danes would perhaps never qualify for benefits from their own welfare state.

There is one other scenario to consider as well. Suppose a highly trained person, say a physicist or surgeon, comes to Denmark and after two years still is earning points toward full eligibility. Before he or she can "cash in," however, a new job offer comes from a country without such silly rules. The physicist and the surgeon leave, and Denmark loses their services. Worse yet, they decide to sue Denmark for recovery of the value of the "points" they accumulated. Since the government has created such a system, these "points" will have a clear monetary value. Would not the European Court likely rule that at least some of the taxes immigrants paid for welfare services they could never enjoy ought to be refunded? 

This is just an example. Many other lawsuits could be imagined, as lawyers calculate the value of unused "points" lost. The lawyers and the accountants would make money. The government would have to hire more people to deal with the complaints and the lawsuits. And, of course, Denmark's reputation would be damaged by the controversy, regardless of who won the individual cases. A brilliant idea, obviously.

CRACPOT: Republican Party Needs a New Name

After the American Century

It is usually best to call things by their right names. There once was a political party in the United States called the Republican Party, which proudly nominated Abraham Lincoln for President. That party would never have considered nominating a bird-brain like Sarah Palin. It was called, affectionately, The Grand Old Party. It made mistakes, of course, but it was the essentially the party of the North, of development, of education, and of fairness, notably in the politics of Teddy Roosevelt. TR was far from perfect, but he did attack corporate monopolies, he often took the side of labor, and he believed passionately in conservation.

The so-called Republican Party of today is not at all the party of Lincoln or of Teddy Roosevelt. It is an angry party, a party of negative campaigning, a party that courts religious fundamentalism, a party that nominates candidates with extremist views. I strongly doubt that Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt would have voted for their candidates in the 2010 election. They were too modern in their thinking. 

The truth is that the Republican Party has become the Christian Capitalist Conservative Party, or CCCP . However, that abbreviation refers to the Communist Party in Russia. So we cannot use it. This new party has its power base is in the old confederacy. Get out a map showing where the slaves were most numerous, and it coincides perfectly with the states that are most staunchly Republican. I am not saying they are racists or that they are Bible beating yahoos, but they are strong in the areas where such people are to be found.

Indeed, if one looks at a map of the election results for the nation as a whole, broken down by county, it is immediately obvious that the Republicans are strongest in the countryside. The Democrats win Chicago, New York City, LA, Philadelphia, and so on, but they lose all those rural counties where people confuse socialism with any form of public services. 

So let me propose a new name for the Republicans, one that expresses their true nature:

Christian Rural American Conservative Party of Tea:   

CRACPOT

The name CRACPOT is accurate and descriptive. It is much needed in order to clarify who we are dealing with.

I therefore propose that CRACPOT be used from now on.

Women, Minorities, and Low Income Groups Voted Democratic

After the American Century

The Democrats lost badly in the House, but hung on to the Senate, as predicted here yesterday. (Indeed, while results are still coming in, it appears that I was nearly 100% correct.) Is there any silver lining for the Democrats? Yes. Women favor the Democrats by a sizeable margin, often as much as 15% more than men. Had only women been voting, the Democrats would have won the Senate seats in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

Likewise, African Americans voted Democratic by overwhelming margins, with typically 20% or less for Republican candidates. Asian Americans also tended strongly to suport Democrats, as did Hispanic Americans, who typically voter 2-1 against the Republicans. These three minorities are all growing, and will have more potential voters each year, The states where they are most numerous, notably California, will be even more bastions for the Democrats than they are already.

Republicans would have won even more seats if only those who made more than $50,000 year had been allowed to vote, or if only those over 40 had voted. In short, Republicans are in some danger of becoming the party of white, old people. You would think this group might want better and less expensive medical care, so part of this constituency could be won over to the Democrats if the new medical system proves a success.

To put this another way, Democrats did best among young people, and also with highly educated people, i.e. those with an MA or a PhD. As the population gets more education, if would seem, they will likely become Democratic voters. 

So, despite the defeat, there are positive signs. The Democrats will need to discover and promote better candidates that can appeal to these demographics.

US Mid-Term Elections: A Typical Result Likely

After the American Century

The media hype about these midterm elections has been devoid of historical memory. One breathless journalist after another has been proclaiming that a vast change is taking place. In fact, this midterm election looks much like those of the past.

Typically, the part occupying the White House loses seats in both the House and the Senate at every midterm election. Between 1842 and 1990. only one sitting president managed to win seats, and that was Roosevelt in 1934 after his spectacular early successes in the New Deal. Otherwise, in that 150 year period, EVERY president lost. Even popular presidents like Eisenhower and LBJ suffered big losses in the midterm elections of 1958 and 1966. Eisenhower lost 48 seats in the House and 13 in the Senate. Johnson lost 47 in the House and 4 in the Senate. So, should Obama lose roughly the same number of House seats, as now projected, he would be in good company.  Note also that Clinton lost 52 seats in the House in 1994, FDR lost 71 House seats in 1938, and Reagan lost 8 Senate seats in 1986.

Perhaps the media have lost track of this pattern in US elections because it did not hold true twice in recent memory. First, in 1998, Clinton did not lose any Senate seats and gained a few in the House. But since he had lost so many seats in 1994 and not gotten so many of them back in 1996, this was less a victory than it might appear. Second, in the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush (who received less than half the vote in 2000), was able to terrify the nation into supporting their president. That was a special circumstance, to say the least, and in 2006 the midterms were "normal" again, as he lost 30 House seats and 6 in the Senate.

One other typical pattern of midterm elections is also running true to form: the races are tightening as we near election day. Races that Republicans seemed likely to win have become ties in several states. Few now think the Republicans will be able to regain control of the Senate, though it does seem they have a good chance to retake control of the House. This could lead to grid-lock in Washington (as in 1995-96), but then again, gaining control of the House might force the Republicans to develop detailed policies again, rather than simply working to obstruct.

I do not regard this election to be anything unusual in the history of American politics. I do not even think the Tea Party is all that significant, since its members are almost all people who would vote Republican anyway.  Given huge secret campaign contributions and lots of media attention, they nevertheless do not seem to be changing the overall pattern very much. US elections are mostly decided by the one-third of the voters who are in the middle, and  they waffle from one party to the other on a regular basis. Unhappily, many of this group are not deeply analytical and appear to have historical memories that stretch only back about three or four years, at best. The beconomy, specifically, their own situation, is the main issue for such voters. With unemployment high, growth sluggish, and lots of foreclosures, this economy would be hard on any incumbent president.

In nine days we will know the results, but the statistical pattern suggests that Obama and the Democrats are not about to suffer anything more than the typical rebalancing inflicted by voters on the incumbents. Why should anyone familiar with American politics think that the nation had suddenly become liberal, or that the Democrats could expect to hold on to 59 Senate seats? Expect the Republicans to regain the House by a small margin, while the Democrats hold on, barely, to the Senate. 

Who is Energy Efficient? Blue States

After the American Century

All solar demonstration house on the Washington Mall

Once again the individual American states have been evaluated for energy efficiency, and again California is the most efficient, with Massachusetts close behind. Basically, the "blue" states that voted for Obama are the most energy efficient, while the over-consuming states are mostly the "red" states that apparently don't really care about being green. Note the states at the bottom of the list, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming. These are also states that don't want a national health care system. Their motto should be "Pollute often - die young."

Here is the complete list:

#1 California          #18 Arizona           #35 Tennessee
#2 Massachusetts    #19 Colorado        #36 Kentucky
#3 Oregon              #19 District of Col #37 Alaska
#4 New York         #19 Nevada           #37 Georgia
#5 Vermont            #22 New Hampshire  #37 South Carolina
#6 Washington       #22 New Mexico #39 South Dakota
#7 Rhode Island     #24 N. Carolina   #41 Arkansas
#8 Connecticut       #25 Illinois           #42 Louisiana
#8 Minnesota         #26 Idaho             #43 Missouri
#10 Maine              #27 Delaware      #43 Oklahoma
#11 Wisconsin        #27 Michigan       #43 West Virginia
#12 Hawaii             #27 Ohio              #46 Kansas
#12 Iowa                #30 Florida          #47 Nebraska
#12 New Jersey     #31 Indiana          #48 Alabama
#12 Utah                #32 Texas            #48 Wyoming
#16 Maryland        #33 Montana        #50 Mississippi
#16 Pennsylvania  #34 Virginia        #51 North Dakota


Note that the "swing" states in presidential elections fall right in the middle of the list, including Michigan, Ohio, and Florida.

The list has changed somewhat in the last year, as states like Arizona and New Mexico have climbed to higher positions as they have adopted more solar energy.

If you want more information, click here.

We Need a Travel Olympics!

After the American Century

The ancient Greeks created their Olympics based on the skills needed back in their day, such as running, throwing a spear, jumping over things, and the like. Today, the world is far different and people need quite different skills. I therefore propose a new Travel Olympics. More disciplines must be added, but here are some vital skills that should be celebrated.

500 Meter Suitcase Race. Participants must run as they carry a standard suitcase, without wheels, that weighs 23 kilos. In the other hand they must hold a carry on bag that weighs 10 kilos. The racecourse must include at least one staircase of 15 or more steps.

2000 Meter Suitcase Relay. As above, with teams of 4. The suitcase handoffs will be crucial.

Security Control. Each participant must be wearing normal street clothing as they enter the Security Control area, carrying with them a 10 kilo bag containing a laptop computer, camera, and other items designated by the directors of the competition. The winner is the competitor who can in the shortest time, remove a a belt, shoes, watch, jacket, spare change, two pens and a memory stick, each in a different pocket, pass through the metal detector, and reassemble and put back in place all their belongings. Points will also be given for the elegance of movement. To be performed with accompanying music, as in figure skating competitions.

Airport Marathon. Contestants are at an airport, blindfolded, and told what gate they must find. The blindfold is then removed as a sketchy map of the airport is given to each.  The winner is that person who first navigates all the obstacles to the proper gate. The obstacles shall include passport control and security control. The signs are to be contradictory, and anyone asking directions incurs a five minute wait in line.

Speed shopping in duty-free, the winner being the person who saves the most compared to high street prices, after spending $1000.

Book Buyer's Nil Served: Ipad's absurd marketing arrangements

After the American Century

One of the chief advantages of getting an Ipad, I imagined, was that I would be able to buy American books quickly and easily. Most of the scholarly books and many of the novels I want are simply not available anywhere in Denmark, and often they are hard to find  in the UK as well. However, Apple has chosen to set up its sales in such a way it will not sell most US books to a person whose residence is outside the US. Even when I am physically present in the US,  because my Ipad belongs to a person with a Danish address, I can only access and buy a tiny selection of books selected for the Danish market.

Imagine going to New York on holiday, entering a real bookstore, selecting several volumes, and then being told at checkout that you may not purchase these books unless you have a bank credit card tied to an American address. This is material for a sketch by Monty Python.

The obvious comparison is Amazon's Kindle reader which costs only a quarter as much as the Ipad, has a much longer battery life (measured in weeks not hours), is lighter in weight by far, and apparently (I have not done this) can download an enormous number of books regardless of where you are in the world or where your billing address might be.

While the Ipad can play videos and music, show photographs, surf the internet, and do lots of other things, the  buyer without a US address who wants American books is ill - indeed almost NIL - served. I could understand (though not like it much) if Apple made a selection of American books available in the EU as a whole, but to slice up the European market into tiny national segments is absurd. Why should the Brit, the German, and the Dane be forced to go to different virtual stores? What is Apple thinking? Are they thinking?

In the present "store" I can get quite a few books by the great Danish author of a century ago, Herman Bang, but I cannot get much of anything contemporary in Danish or in English. A new German novel had a nice review in the New York Times yesterday, but using the Apple "service" I cannot buy this book in either German or in English. It is sham, a joke, a hoax, and quite nonsensical. Indeed, it is close to false advertising, for Apple to brag about their book service when it really is only for people with an American billing address.

No doubt there will be some way to work around this silliness, and eventually Apple will discover that it is not selling books abroad because they actually are not for sale. But for now the  eager young IT chaps at the Apple store could offer no help, and it was all they could do to suppress their irritation and keep up a facade of "service."

Five Weeks Until the US Election

After the American Century

With the election only five weeks away, the polls have indicated a Republican resurgence. On the one hand, this is typical: the party that loses a presidential election usually makes inroads two years later. The reasons for this seem to be pretty much the same. Disillusionment with the new president sets in after two years, because the world remains stubbornly much the same. Changes take time, and two years is often not enough time for new policies to have much effect. The changes that Obama has brought to medical care in America are only now being implemented, and it will be several more years before the people will know whether they like the new system or not.

On the other hand, this is perhaps not a normal election. The anger on the Right, the selection of several truly incompetent Republican candidates for the Senate (notably in Delaware and Nevada), and the tone of the election, suggests that those who lost in 2008 are not playing by the ordinary political rules. Their rhetoric is often nasty and overheated, and the economic proposals they are making border on impossible nonsense. Instead of moving toward the center, to capture swing voters, Republicans are seeking to win by mobilizing the base of extremists that have emerged in the Tea Party movement. They have also brought back from the shadows of temporary retirement Karl Rove, the architect of Geroge W. Bush's campaigns. 

In short, this is not a chastened and repentant Republican Party eager to show it understands the errors of its ways. This is not a Republican Party that understands it almost destroyed the economy or that its policies have made the United States a weaker business competitor that is behind the curve on developing alternative energy or sustainable housing, This is not a Republican Party that has taken time to think of new policies or innovative approaches to problems. Rather, the Republicans are acting like "true believers" who keep insisting on their beliefs even when prophecy fails. They at times seem to be more a cult than a savvy political party, more concerned with ideological purity than pragmatic solutions or compromises. 

The swing voters will turn against the incumbents as they always do, and the fervent right wingers will be out in force. The danger is that Democrats may not turn out in November, feeling a little disillusioned. The passionate crowds calling for change in 2008 are not very visible, and the President is not as popular as his wife Michelle at the moment.

The Republicans are hungry and well financed, thanks to a Supreme Court decision to let corporations give unlimited amounts to campaigns. Can the Democrats rally?