People sometime say that UK science is thriving, at other times that it has declined. But both assertions are true, because the UK is thriving with respect to the volume of ‘normal’ science production but at the same time declining in the highest level of ‘revolutionary’ science.
Here is much more, from loyal MR commentator Bruce Charlton. Note that the data set includes economists. I have noticed this pattern in UK economics; it no longer feels like UK and US economics are fundamentally different, unlike for instance in the 1980s.
curse university rankings.
Yay for Mediocristan!
By the way, can anywhere compete with Trinity College of Cambridge for alumni:
Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Francis Bacon, Niels Bohr, John Dryden, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Francis Galton, Vladimir Nabokov, Bertrand Russell, Ernest Rutherford, William Makepeace Thackeray, Arthur Balfour, G. H. Hardy, A. A. Milne, Jawaharlal Nehru, John Maynard Smith, Lytton Strachey, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I’m an author of the paper.
‘anon’ asks about controlling for ease of publication – that control comes from the use of UK versus US comparisons, and market share measures.
Steve Sailer mentions the UK’s (and Cambridge’s) fantastic record for revolutionary science – indeed. But Oxford Univesrity has not won a Nobel prize since 1973; and Cambridge has won only two in the past twenty years.
But in the USA for 1987-2004 MIT won 11 prizes, Stanford won 9, Columbia and Chicago 7, Princeton 6, Harvard 5†¦ In the US public universities Berkeley got 4; UCSF, Irvine and Santa Barbara 3 each; Colorado 4 and Washington (Seattle) 3. All these US institutions (and some others) probably currently outperform both Oxford and Cambridge in revolutionary science.
When I looked for a match with Oxford among US universities – matching for citations per year and number of ISI Highly Cited academics – the closest match is University of Minnesota. U of Minn is probably just in the third tier of US universities (they have won a single Nobel prize – in economics last year) – yet in terms of (mostly scientific) research it currently equals Oxford.
That is a measure of the UK’s decline in revolutionary science.
Yet until about the last 20-30 years the UK was wininng as many Nobels-per capita as the USA (or more) and was also a magnet for foreign born first-rate scientists. Not any more. Now the UK is losing Highly Cited and future Nobel prizewinning scientists to the USA.
The interesting thing is that overall UK science production seems to be thriving. That is why we suggested down-shifting as an explanation: the first rate UK scientists who would have been trying to do first rate work 40 years ago are now either emigrating to the USA or else are downshifting to secnd rate work – and (becuase these are the best and brightest scientists) punping out very good second rate work in enormous volume.
So we see the pattern – increasing total volume of UK scientific research fuelled by the transfer of effort away from revolutionary science.
Steve Sailer speculates on Oxford Cambridge differences. I’m not sure where lie the ultimate roots of the comparative advantage difference, and both Oxford and Cambridge are about the same distance from London. According to a paper I read by Richard Lynn, the highest UK IQ is in London, and IQ falls off according to distance from London (probably due to many centuries of selective migration to the capital). On that basis I wouldn’t expect a difference in the IQ of local populations.
But until around the mid 19th century Cambridge offered only mathematics degrees as a classified ‘honours’ degree (the whole class were ranked in order, and the top ranked student was called the ‘Senior Wrangler’. By contrast, the only serious degree at Oxford was the four year classics degree divided into ‘Mods’ and ‘Greats’ (most English degrees are only 3 years).
So budding scientists were directed to Cambridge, and future administrators to Oxford. And at Cambridge, Trinity College was like a university within the University, with its own laboratories etc.
In recent years Oxford has switched heavily towards science, especially medical sciences, and in volume terms now produces pretty much the same as Cambridge – see my analysis at: http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/oxmagarts.html
In this way, you can buy and gain very cheap FFXI gold.
Every success is based on continuous efforts. It is not possible be done over nigh.
It is enlightening!
thank you for this information.sis jarMy local telecom is a monopoly, and it is out-of-control as far as wiretapping, eavesdropping, hacking, controling e-mail programs, phishing, spoof websites, etc.
No company should be immune from law suits and especially companies that control our communications.To give telecoms immunity will make “big brother”free nokia 6600 games
Comments on this entry are closed.