| Username |
Post |
| Kali Prasad |
Posted
on 01-May-01 09:26 PM
When I started reading economics literature for the first time few years ago, I noticed that to be a successful economist you have to be a good mathematician or a good statistician. If you come from humanities background in Nepal, unless you are math major, your mathematics is really below the basic level. When I finished highschool in late 80s, science and mathematics were optional. Lot of people skipped those subjects from their highschool curriculum as a consequence they end up studying history or nepali in a college after graduation. There is nothing wrong with history or nepali major, but a country like ours need to have good technical people so that we can have better and innovative technical manpower.
I disagree with Homraj that south asians are good in mathematics. The best mathematicians in the world are russians, polish, and Chinese. The best engineers in the world are Germans. We got plenty of proofs so I am not going to repeat those here.
Indians are good in statistics because when neharu became a prime minister he made the department of statistics as an independent government body just like three other wings of the indian government. Therefore, there is this vast development of statistics in India (indian statistical institute). Up to late 60s, their statistics Journal SANKHYA used to be the best statistics journal in the world.
Basically, if you want to be a successful person in economics, science or engineering, you have to have good mathematics and statistics background. Better yet, from my experience, you should do an undergrad degree in mathematics if you want to pursue your career in those field. You can minor in something of your interest (engineering, economics, physics or whatever). That will take you a long way than other route.
Now going back to labor mobility issue which I pointed out in my earlier posting that labor mobility is quite different than free trade. The economic effect of free labor mobility is ultimate equalization of wage (factor price equalization). What I have seen among us Nepalese is the slave mentality. We started as GURKHAS in british army and we are still continuing the same trend albeit differently. It has gotten worse now in the name of earning money. Few years ago, I was visiting Japan for two weeks. I saw famous nepalese singers, players, writers, politicians, and even academicians as a blue collar worker. It is really painful to see the waste of manpower. We have never developed the sense of entrepreuneriship in Nepal. We do not have to be the slave of other people in foreign countries when we can do same kind of works in Nepal and develop our country and make a significant impact towards the upliftment of the economics standard of people. Better yet, live a respected life in our own country.
This website attracts most brilliant young cohort of people living in the USA. I have seen people who are either harvard and MIT graduates or the students pursuing degrees in those schools. Then I look at what percentage of these people would/have actually gone to a graduate schools and finished doctoral degrees. I suppose not many. Why? Some of you guys are the best students in Nepal and even in these top Ivy League universities, why are you limiting your education to only undergraduate or the farthest to a masters degree?
I look at every top schools and see Indians in engineering or economics departments. We are not utilizing this free labor mobility benefit to capture the academic market in the US. It is my naive thinking that we are too drawn to money. WE want to send our parents few hundred dollars so that they can build a house in kathmandu or furnish their house with nice amenities. Guys they can wait. I suggest we take advantage of our being here and capture the academic position in top universities. It does not seem impossible as most of you are already doing good in the top Ivy League schools.
I run into a very bright nepalese student lately. He had the best GRE score I have ever seen among nepalese people (Yes, verbal score was also above 700). When his indians and chinese buddies were getting admission letters from top schools, he got none from them. You know there may be several reasons but one most important point is definitely not having enough nepalese people in the teaching position at the top universities in the US or even at the Ph.D. level in these universities. The reputation builds up slowly. If we get nepalese faculty in top universities then they can favorably look at their fellow nepalese and do fair judgement than bias judgement as often happens in a graduate school. I gave an example earlier in my postings where I talked about an indian student getting call from many top ivy league schools. This is not only due to her talency but because there are many indian faculty in the top schools.
In the retrospect, too many of our talents are wasting their time here in the USA because they can have a nice life style here. I know few of the best nepalese academicians who have simply left their field of expertise and now are doing SAS/Java programming and earning money. Their 20 years of training did not do any good for their fellow nepalese citizens or in that sense the citizens of the world. I can guarantee the total welfare effect would have been great had they contributed some thing in their own field rather than running after money.
So guys, lot of you are the smartest people in your college. Use your talency to capture the academic positions in US universities. WE should not be myopic and think only about money. Your opportunity cost is too high to be doing a mediocre job after an undergraduate degree from the top schools. I would be interested to know how many of our nepalese people are currently in the top universities doing top level of research and being a role model to rest of us. I know may be three (including Dr. Rajbhandari at MIT), but I hope you will make yourself as the fourth one in this route.
Cheers,
|
| Jhapali |
Posted
on 01-May-01 10:40 PM
May be you are right.
|
| Hom Raj |
Posted
on 02-May-01 12:06 AM
Or maybe not.
At least on a few points.
You mentioned, "I disagree with Homraj that south asians are good in mathematics. The best mathematicians in the world are russians, polish, and Chinese. The best engineers in the world are Germans."
It's not about "the best." I don't care who is the world's number one. It's not the Olympics. It's a matter of being generally good, as a society. What I mean is South Asians seem to perform better (like I argued in thread before this one) in comparison to Americans. Interestingly we have provided them with a stereotype: maybe many people here have experience that Americans are always assuming if you have brown skin, you must be brilliant in math.
You can test this yourself. Walk around on campus with a bunch of white folks. If other white folks come looking for direction of engineering or science building, most probably the question will be directed at you. I'm speaking from experience. I had this happen so many times. People just assume, brown equals math.
Statistically, we South Asians are probably more likely to be tarkari wallahs. Polish are probably busy making kielbasi. Chinese are standing in rice fields pulling leeches off their legs, just like us Nepalis.
Frankly, many many Americans value various creative fields more highly than what they would call "boring" (not my view) math and engineering fields; consequently there is a lack of manpower in US for math, technology, etc. That's why America changed the visa rules to bring more mathematicians. Because there is a lack of people willing to do the "tedious" work, or prepared to do it by early pushing from parents, or whatever.
Btw, I have also seen very reputed people of Nepal doing menial work in the US. I've seen doctors, engineers, and scientists pumping gas. Surprisingly, quite a few of them. Math should have led them to good fortune, but it didn't. The same with creative artists: their art should lead them to secure livelihood, but it doesn't.
I agree that a country like ours needs to have good technical people--although mostly the technical manpower seems to get syphoned off, doesn't it? And sometimes it's the gas pumps of America (or the slaughterhouse of Japan) that do the syphoning. What we really need--among many things--is a culture that values hard work. A culture that values work in general, so that no matter what you do, it should be done well and rewarded decently.
Anyway, I'm not implicating a magic bullet. Just some ideas. Nice to see good thoughts given here to this subject.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 02-May-01 12:31 AM
>When I started reading economics literature
>for the first time few years ago, I noticed
>that to be a successful economist you have
>to be a good mathematician or a good
>statistician.
A strong mathematical background is always a PLUS thing, but the qualities that make a path-breaking, star economist are SAME as those required for excellence in any other fields of endeavor:
1. Creativity (i.e. ability to come up with ideas and the ability to investigate connections among disparate things)
2. emotional persistence to wrestle with an (intellectual)
issue over a long, long period of time (My informal assessment
is that most Nepalis seem to lack this sort of relentless, never-giving-up-type of emotional persistence and emotional stamina to be a star in anything!!)
3. willingness to ask difficult questions when answers are not clear at all,
4. ability to take serious (intellectual) risks,
5. ability to use the networks of colleagues for professional/peer criticisms and comments.
and so on.
Like I said, these are pretty much the qualities that make star programmers, star artists, star anything.
Robert Lucas, the 1995 Nobel Prize winner, who has done much to mathematize macro-economics majored in history as an undergrad
at the University of Chicago. Paul Krugman, who loved studying humanities as an undergrad at Yale, has written someplace that fancy, Greek-letter mathematics is rarely a substitute for original, path-breaking insight. Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Prize winner, has decried (in his famous essay: "Rational Fools") the use of relentless linear logic to the point of absurdity.
Bottom line?
Mathematics has become the language of ACADEMIC (graduate)economics. But insights, as ever, are being generated NOT necessarily by the most mathematically-talented economists, but by the most creative ones.
David Card and Alan Krueger come to my mind.
>There is nothing wrong with history or
>nepali major, but a country like ours need
>to have good technical people so that we can
>have better and innovative technical
>manpower.
If anything, Nepal has plenty of 'technical
people', but not enough people with wisdom
to know which techniques fit where and
which techniques do not fit at all.
Publicly, what is needed are: 100s of technically
competent Nepalis, each with the heart of a
humanist. A few such people do exist: such
as Bikash Pandey and Pratyoush Onta.
>I disagree with Homraj that south asians are
>good in mathematics. The best
>mathematicians in the world are russians,
>polish, and Chinese.
Oh come on!! :-)
What about the Hungarians?
And the Bulgarians?
Hungary's dominance in science and mathematics
is especially astounding.
>Now going back to labor mobility issue which
>I pointed out in my earlier posting that
>labor mobility is quite different than free
>trade.
Yes, we can get technical, of course. But for our
discussion purpose here, we can assume that free trade
includes: unrestricted flow of goods and services
(along with capital and labor) from point
A to point B and vice versa.
>The economic effect of free labor
>mobility is ultimate equalization of wage (
>factor price equalization).
In theory, yes.
>What I have
>seen among us Nepalese is the slave
>mentality. We started as GURKHAS in british
>army and we are still continuing the same
>trend albeit differently. It has gotten
>worse now in the name of earning money. Few
>years ago, I was visiting Japan for two
>weeks. I saw famous nepalese singers,
>players, writers, politicians, and even
>academicians as a blue collar worker. It is
>really painful to see the waste of manpower.
> We have never developed the sense of
>entrepreuneriship in Nepal. We do not have
>to be the slave of other people in foreign
>countries when we can do same kind of works
>in Nepal and develop our country and make a
>significant impact towards the upliftment of
>the economics standard of people. Better
>yet, live a respected life in our own
>country.
Suddenly, you sound NO longer like an economist :-)
Why do people migrate from point A to point
B? What could be the incentives and what could
be the economic logic behind Nepalis' migrating
abroad?
Surely, you are aware that people like Jagdish Bhagwati
at Columbia and Geroge Borjas at Harvard have written
extensively on the economics of immigration.
>Then I look at what
>percentage of these people would/have
>actually gone to a graduate schools and
>finished doctoral degrees. I suppose not
>many. Why? Some of you guys are the best
>students in Nepal and even in these top Ivy
>League universities, why are you limiting
>your education to only undergraduate or the
>farthest to a masters degree?
Why not?
Even at Harvard, I have seen the smartest of my
classmates going to law schools, business schools
and medical schools in LARGE numbers-- and
relatively few to PhD programs.
I think most students accurately see that graduating from, say,
a school like Harvard Law or Business gives you a much higher return (througout your life) on your investment than earning
a PhD from, say, Harvard's economics departments.
You don't enter a PhD program on anything for "prestige" or for "some ego ko reason". If so, you will be a miserable
student for a number of years. And who wants to be a miserable graduate student?
You enter a PhD program because
a: you have a few burning intellectual questions and you want to spend a number years mastering the tools so that you can begin to to seek answers to those questions.
b: you love economics or physics or French literature so much
that you see yourself devoting your ENTIRE life to your subject --teaching and/or doing research. The key here is: Love for the subject.
Many smart students -- Nepalis or others -- do NOT have either
of those reasons to enter a PhD program, and that's perfectly, perfectly fine.
>I run into a very bright nepalese student
>lately. He had the best GRE score I have
>ever seen among nepalese people (Yes, verbal
>score was also above 700). When his indians
>and chinese buddies were getting admission
>letters from top schools, he got none from
>them. You know there may be several reasons
>but one most important point is definitely
>not having enough nepalese people in the
>teaching position at the top universities in
>the US or even at the Ph.D. level in these
>universities.
That Nepali could have been rejected for
a variety of reasons, but it's safe to say
absence of Nepali faculty members is not
one of those reasons.
Look, top schools routinely reject even
those with perfect 800s on GREs.
>In the retrospect, too many of our talents
>are wasting their time here in the USA
>because they can have a nice life style here.
Well, what's wrong with that?
People are FREE to choose any life-style
they wish to have for themselves, aren't
they?
> I know few of the best nepalese
>academicians who have simply left their
>field of expertise and now are doing SAS/
>Java programming and earning money. Their 20
> years of training did not do any good for
>their fellow nepalese citizens or in that
>sense the citizens of the world.
Again, incentives, incentives and incentives,
my friend.
I do NOT look down upon those academicians for now being Java programmers. They are FREE to be anything they wish to
be.
If anything, I'd think that they've acted
rationally in that they are maximizing the benefits to their
selves. Who can blame them for acting rationally?
oohi
ashu
|
| Kali Prasad |
Posted
on 02-May-01 01:40 AM
I agree with many things that Ashu and Homraj wrote. I will take their points as an opportunity to clarify few of the things I mentioned in my first posting. In some sense, their arguments could be addendums to my original posting (with due credit). That is what I love about this website. It attracts pretty darn good people who scrutinize each others writing.
Yes, creativity is an important thing no matter what field you are in. So I am not saying that mathematics alone can get you nobel prize but what I am saying is having mathematics background makes you successful under ceteris paribus argument.
Lucas and another nobel prize winning economist did major in history in their undergraduate. In fact Lucas wanted to major in engineering but Chicago does not have that so he could not do it. When he returned to Chicago (He got admitted to Berkely for grad degree in history but later abandon it) again for grad school in economics, he took lot of classes in statistics and mathematics undergraduate classes to fill the void in his math knowledge. So Ashu, he did mastered in those things before going to grad school in economics at UChicago. You can look at his bio if you want more info. Fogel (I had opportunities to meet and talk to him few times in the past) did went to John Hopkins and got his doctoral degree in economic history. His nobel prize also came in the same field. His creativity and along with his capacity to interpret history in mathematical terms helped him to win the nobel prize. I frequently talk to people in economics profession in the top schools. They tell oh if you know somebody with mathematics background send them to us. I am not kidding you. For example, Berkeley and other top schools have given very much priority to someone with engineering or mathematics background in their program (Yes of course they do admit economics major in their grad program). Few years ago, I had a chance to read about Diewart, who is one of topmost economists (no he has not won the nobel prize yet and I am not sure he will ever win that but still I consider him a top level economist) who was in Chicago for his doctoral degree having had undergrad degree in engineering. There are plenty of those examples and I request some of you to look at the vita of students currently enrolled in top economics department in the US universities.
Anyway, nothing is wrong living in the US. I myself have been living here quite a long so I cannot ask other people to go back home. What bothers me though is waste of talent like what Homraj pointed out (gas station engineers). There is lack of confidence among us on the fact that we can compete, we can do good. We are not taught like that in Nepal. How often did you get congratulated by your parents for doing really good in school? My parent did not. There is a lack of respect to ourself among us nepalese. A friend of mine used to work in the USDA lab in Maryland after his doctoral degree. He told me lot of people in DC told him to be a cook to get a green card. See that is the nature of our nepalese people. Sell your pride and do what ever it takes to stay here. I do not think that is healthy. Ashu, that may be your defintion of incentive but to me that is downright pathetic. Incentive is thing where people engage in the similar activities which he has been trained at. If you are a mathematician, it makes sense for some one to stay in the US as a mathematician or something related. The definition of incentive given by you is quite wrong. We need to redefine that concept if that is the prevalent and common definition among nepalese living in the US or back home.
One things we need to have is the sense of self-respect. If you cannot respect your profession and yourself, you cannot achieve any thing significant in your life. All the temporary things you achieve will be fleeting. Is not it time for us to think more than a tin roof or a fancy gadget in our parent's house back home?
Another argument I want to make and reiterate here is that it is not necessary for all of us to hold a doctoral degree. You can be a good lawyer, a good doctor or what ever but be good in what you doing. Earn the respect of your fellow workers. Hopefully, on the way, you may help a fellow nepalese. Make a positive influence to people in this country so that some of your fellow predecessor nepalese who comes here to study or whatever may benefit. The size of the pie is quite big here. We can help other nepalese and still be not harmed yet all. In Nepal we have a small pie so we fight and pull each others leg. We do not have to do that. I recently heard our nepalese students are making that impact in undergraduate schools in North east corner. Let's extend that to a graduate level. Let's extend that to faculty level. Again I am speaking from experience. Having reputation means even a relatively less competent people can pass the admission gate. Ashu again your argument few days ago that not all the people in Harvard are the smartest one applies here.
I think I have said enough here. The take home message I want to convey here are -- Yes, creativity counts, Yes,
mathematics is important for success. Few additional thing is if you cannot respect yourself and your profession you better not waste 20 years of education learning something that is going to be completely irrelevant for your living.
Once again, I would rather see person like Ashu in good economics department as a professor than a java programmer with six months of computer training from no name place. You may earn money and good living but you ain't gonna earn respect from me or many other nepalese people.
Cheers,
>>When I started reading economics literature
>
>for the first time few years ago, I
>noticed
>>that to be a successful economist you have
>>to be a good mathematician or a good
>>statistician.
>
>A strong mathematical background is always a
>PLUS thing, but the qualities that make a
>path-breaking, star economist are SAME as
>those required for excellence in any other
>fields of endeavor:
>
>1. Creativity (i.e. ability to come up with
>ideas and the ability to investigate
>connections among disparate things)
>
>2. emotional persistence to wrestle with an (
>intellectual)
>issue over a long, long period of time (My
>informal assessment
>is that most Nepalis seem to lack this sort
>of relentless, never-giving-up-type of
>emotional persistence and emotional stamina
>to be a star in anything!!)
>
>3. willingness to ask difficult questions
>when answers are not clear at all,
>
>4. ability to take serious (intellectual)
>risks,
>
>5. ability to use the networks of colleagues
>for professional/peer criticisms and
>comments.
>
>and so on.
>
>Like I said, these are pretty much the
>qualities that make star programmers, star
>artists, star anything.
>
>Robert Lucas, the 1995 Nobel Prize winner,
>who has done much to mathematize macro-
>economics majored in history as an undergrad
>
at the University of Chicago. Paul Krugman,
> who loved studying humanities as an
>undergrad at Yale, has written someplace
>that fancy, Greek-letter mathematics is
>rarely a substitute for original, path-
>breaking insight. Amartya Sen, the 1998
>Nobel Prize winner, has decried (in his
>famous essay: "Rational Fools") the use of
>relentless linear logic to the point of
>absurdity.
>
>Bottom line?
>
>Mathematics has become the language of
>ACADEMIC (graduate)economics. But insights,
>as ever, are being generated NOT necessarily
>by the most mathematically-talented
>economists, but by the most creative ones.
>
>David Card and Alan Krueger come to my mind.
>
>>There is nothing wrong with history or
>>nepali major, but a country like ours need
>>to have good technical people so that we
>can
>>have better and innovative technical
>>manpower.
>
>If anything, Nepal has plenty of 'technical
>people', but not enough people with wisdom
>to know which techniques fit where and
>which techniques do not fit at all.
>
>Publicly, what is needed are: 100s of
>technically
>competent Nepalis, each with the heart of a
>humanist. A few such people do exist: such
>as Bikash Pandey and Pratyoush Onta.
>
>
>>I disagree with Homraj that south asians
>are
>>good in mathematics. The best
>>mathematicians in the world are russians,
>>polish, and Chinese.
>
>Oh come on!! :-)
>
>What about the Hungarians?
>And the Bulgarians?
>
>Hungary's dominance in science and
>mathematics
>is especially astounding.
>
>>Now going back to labor mobility issue
>which
>>I pointed out in my earlier posting that
>>labor mobility is quite different than free
>
>trade.
>
>Yes, we can get technical, of course. But
>for our
>discussion purpose here, we can assume that
>free trade
>includes: unrestricted flow of goods and
>services
>(along with capital and labor) from point
>A to point B and vice versa.
>
>>The economic effect of free labor
>>mobility is ultimate equalization of wage (
>>factor price equalization).
>
>In theory, yes.
>
>>What I have
>>seen among us Nepalese is the slave
>>mentality. We started as GURKHAS in
>british
>>army and we are still continuing the same
>>trend albeit differently. It has gotten
>>worse now in the name of earning money.
>Few
>>years ago, I was visiting Japan for two
>>weeks. I saw famous nepalese singers,
>>players, writers, politicians, and even
>>academicians as a blue collar worker. It
>is
>>really painful to see the waste of manpower.
>
>> We have never developed the sense of
>>entrepreuneriship in Nepal. We do not have
>
>to be the slave of other people in
>foreign
>>countries when we can do same kind of works
>
>in Nepal and develop our country and make
>a
>>significant impact towards the upliftment
>of
>>the economics standard of people. Better
>>yet, live a respected life in our own
>>country.
>
>Suddenly, you sound NO longer like an
>economist :-)
>
>Why do people migrate from point A to point
>B? What could be the incentives and what
>could
>be the economic logic behind Nepalis'
>migrating
>abroad?
>
>Surely, you are aware that people like
>Jagdish Bhagwati
>at Columbia and Geroge Borjas at Harvard
>have written
>extensively on the economics of immigration.
>
>>Then I look at what
>>percentage of these people would/have
>>actually gone to a graduate schools and
>>finished doctoral degrees. I suppose not
>>many. Why? Some of you guys are the best
>>students in Nepal and even in these top Ivy
>
>League universities, why are you limiting
>
>your education to only undergraduate or
>the
>>farthest to a masters degree?
>
>
>Why not?
>
>Even at Harvard, I have seen the smartest of
>my
>classmates going to law schools, business
>schools
>and medical schools in LARGE numbers-- and
>relatively few to PhD programs.
>
>I think most students accurately see that
>graduating from, say,
>a school like Harvard Law or Business gives
>you a much higher return (througout your
>life) on your investment than earning
>a PhD from, say, Harvard's economics
>departments.
>
>You don't enter a PhD program on anything
>for "prestige" or for "some ego ko reason".
>If so, you will be a miserable
>student for a number of years. And who wants
>to be a miserable graduate student?
>
>You enter a PhD program because
>
>a: you have a few burning intellectual
>questions and you want to spend a number
>years mastering the tools so that you can
>begin to to seek answers to those questions.
>
>b: you love economics or physics or French
>literature so much
>that you see yourself devoting your ENTIRE
>life to your subject --teaching and/or doing
>research. The key here is: Love for the
>subject.
>
>Many smart students -- Nepalis or others --
>do NOT have either
>of those reasons to enter a PhD program, and
>that's perfectly, perfectly fine.
>
>
>>I run into a very bright nepalese student
>>lately. He had the best GRE score I have
>>ever seen among nepalese people (Yes,
>verbal
>>score was also above 700). When his
>indians
>>and chinese buddies were getting admission
>>letters from top schools, he got none from
>>them. You know there may be several
>reasons
>>but one most important point is definitely
>>not having enough nepalese people in the
>>teaching position at the top universities
>in
>>the US or even at the Ph.D. level in these
>>universities.
>
>That Nepali could have been rejected for
>a variety of reasons, but it's safe to say
>absence of Nepali faculty members is not
>one of those reasons.
>
>Look, top schools routinely reject even
>those with perfect 800s on GREs.
>
>
>>In the retrospect, too many of our talents
>>are wasting their time here in the USA
>>because they can have a nice life style
>here.
>
>Well, what's wrong with that?
>
>People are FREE to choose any life-style
>they wish to have for themselves, aren't
>they?
>
>
>> I know few of the best nepalese
>>academicians who have simply left their
>>field of expertise and now are doing SAS/
>>Java programming and earning money. Their 2
>0
>> years of training did not do any good for
>>their fellow nepalese citizens or in that
>>sense the citizens of the world.
>
>Again, incentives, incentives and incentives,
>
my friend.
>
>I do NOT look down upon those academicians
>for now being Java programmers. They are
>FREE to be anything they wish to
>be.
>
>If anything, I'd think that they've acted
>rationally in that they are maximizing the
>benefits to their
>selves. Who can blame them for acting
>rationally?
>
>
>oohi
>ashu
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 02-May-01 06:46 AM
Kali wrote:
>Once again, I would rather see person like
>Ashu in good economics department as a
>professor than a java programmer with six
>months of computer training from no name
>place.
Hi Kali,
Thank you for your vote of confidence
in my abilities. And, no, I am not a
Java programmer.
Looking back, I must say that I have sometimes
benefited from others' over-estimating my abilities.
Believe me, I know how stupid I can be/get at
times :-)
That aside, since I love sharing knowledge and finding
out new things, and since most people change their careers three or four times these days, I have not completely ruled out either a full-time or a part-time career in teaching/research at some point in the future. We'll see how things develop.
Meantime, in Kathmandu, I'm very happy helping driven Nepali private-sector start-ups get off the ground with their ideas, marketing research, product development, and so on. I figured that working with enthusiastic, energetic and risk-taking Nepali start-ups 5 days every week is the best way I can learn about various aspects of Nepali businesses while building valuable networks for the future.
BTW, on another note, Fogel's works have been of help as background readings for my Kamaiya-related research. I agree
that to do serious economics these days you need to be 'khatara' in math, and that, all things being equal, an economics grad department would probably admit a math or an engineering student over someone with a sociology background.
That said, STILL, -- as an advocate of individual freedom -- I would leave it up to smart Nepalis in America themselves as to what they want to be -- Java programmers or McKinsey consultants or Stanford professors or even no one special.
That is so because paths to success and happiness in life are MANY and MANY. And that, each Nepali needs to choose for himself/herself what his/her particular path to sucess and happiness is.
And that's one of the key lessons I learnt in the US.
oohi
ashu
|
| Kali Prasad |
Posted
on 02-May-01 08:57 AM
Ashu:
At least with your postings in the past, I can deduct that you rank among the pretty bright nepalese students. Hopefully, your Kamaiya work and other experiences will help you to win admission and assistantship to the top graduate school in the US. Although I prefer having somebody like you in academia and make a significant impact, it is your call to be a consultant or a professor in a top university or a policy maker in the world bank.
Yes, I do believe in personal freedom but sometime we are all not a rational decision maker (a reknown agricultural economist used to tell me that farmers are not rational decision makers in the US as they continue to farm despite negative net return year after year). You figure!
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 02-May-01 11:13 AM
Hi Kali,
I am surprised that someone with your kind of
particular economics background would continue
to espouse a rather NARROW view of success.
Success in life is not ONLY and ALL ABOUT about
getting into a top graduate school in the US.
Nepalis like us need to be "opportunity-obsessed"
and NOT "prestige-obsessed".
And so: My attitude is: If you make good use of
opportunities, all kinds of opportunities, that
come your way, you become a success, and prestige
will surely follow sooner or later.
This way, you don't have to chase prestige. It
will come to you.
For all I care, you know, I'd rather master Chinese
at the Biswo Bhasa Campus in the next two
years, and start doing business with and in
China with billion-plus people and, with hardwork
and luck, become a multi-millionaire by the time
I'm 40, retire happily ever after and, who
knows, maybe endow a chair in my mother's name
at a top US graduate school :-)
That would be pretty good success story
without ever earning an MBA from Harvard!!
You know, looking at China (especially Sanghaii)
now, such dreams are entirely possible.
So, my comment to you is this:
Let's think big. Let's expand the definition
of success. Let's encourage our fellow Nepalis
to be the best they can be in things they are
INTERESTED in -- whether in the arts, the
sciences, the humanities, the crafts, the trades,
whatever. Let us obsess about making the best of
the opportunities that come our way . . .
As long as people like you harp on narrow
defintions of success (i.e. professorship in
the academia, which is fine and good, but which
is not everyone's cup of tea), then I am afraid
that all we will get is the repetition of the "SLC Syndrome" -- which is to say, too many failures for so few successes.
And we certainly don't need that, do we?
oohi
"let each person be the success s/he wants to be".
ashu
|
| Kali Prasad |
Posted
on 02-May-01 02:45 PM
Ashu:
I could not help but notice your idea of economics. I feel like I should clarify here the
difference between economics and business. Economics looks at societal welfare
equity, justice, and distribution issues. Economics looks to find the efficient way of
doing things but considers all of these things when weighing alternatives (think about cost benefit analysis. Benefit is quite a broad term, agree?).
This is the exact reason why there is a nobel prize in economics but not in business.
It is because Business is concerned about the bottom line. Business driven by the shareholders
decision so there is nothing like maximizing the welfare of the society. That is where these two subjects
differ.
The reason I am harping (according to your charge to me!) on the issue of having more nepalese in top graduate program in US universities
is because people who are well trained and well learnt and inquisitive thinking fit in academia more than in business. That is
where they can make important contributions to a country.
My original point is again if your goal is how to earn money, then I have nothing to say.
However, my initial argument which I repeat again is we have to go beyond this money chasing dream and try to contribute differently.
Frankly speaking, if you stay in academia and establish your name, you can earn as much money as
you can while at the same time contributing things which benefits general populace.
I think it is great idea that you are thinking about naming a endowed position after your mom in a top US university. But my original argument is not
whether you should earn money or not. My argument is to motivate our young cohort of smart nepalese people
currently enrolled in ivy league schools and top colleges in the US to actively pursue a dream of being in academia in the top schools as a faculty. If it is not meant for you that is fine. But just because you want to earn money fast, do not abandon this great way of impacting life of many people. Since
most of these students are so close to success already, my argument is why not they give one more big push establish themselves in something
where we have very miniscule representation.
I admire your desire to be a rich and successful person but remember success and satisfaction do not
mean hoarding wealth. It is how you can impact the life of millions of poor people in Nepal or beyond.
I would say you can impact life of more people by being a professor in top US university than
a wealth collector in Nepal. I think we have plenty of those people in Nepal who does not know
anything but "me". And look what they have done to our country. Is not that the common scenario
prevalent in most of the developing countries?
I wish you luck in your endeavor towards China trade venture.
Cheers,
|
