The US is decoupling from China everywhere except for the numbers.
The US is decoupling from China everywhere except for the numbers.
Despite some brain drain, according to Nature Index, China now has the best academic/research institutions in 3 of the 4 major fields of sciences: physical sciences, chemistry, and earth & environmental sciences (the US still leads in life sciences). Ever wondered why China now has such a commanding lead in technologies such as 5G, EV battery, and renewable energy?
There is a glass/bamboo ceiling in the US for Chinese, those who reached the ceiling will have better opportunity by returning to China, thus break the ceiling, those who has not touched the ceiling really doesn't matter where they are.Not all but some.
I wasn't talking about undergrad trashes but STEM PhD students who emigrates to the US, and after completing their PhD vast majority becomes faculties in US universities, becomes scientists at US national labs, or joins the US deep tech companies.
You can look at the faculty list of Top US Physics, Chemistry, Life Science, ECE and CS departments, and how many of them were born in China. You can look at the people working in Google Deepmind, Meta FAIR, Microsoft Research, and how many of them were born in China. You can also look at Apple, Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, AMAT, LAM, KLA, Synopsis/Cadence, Scientific instrumentation companies patent authors list and how many of them were born in China.
I was talking about Chinese people born in China, did their STEM undergrad in China, and then emigrated to the US.
If you have trouble reading and yet are so sensitive. What's the point of arguing with you? Everything I say is somehow Singapore-bashing to you. If I start giving examples of Singapore chauvinists to you, this thread is gonna derail.Explaining a shit take with word play, so cool.
If these "some people" are Internet larpers, who cares? If these some people have some prominence in real life, enough to sometimes grate* on some neighbours, how about one example?
* If the people getting grated are Internet larpers, who cares?
As for the media in Singapore, the English language press, ST and CNA, regurgitate western propaganda uncritically when it comes to non-domestic issues. Personally, I consider them captured. The Chinese paper Zaobao is much more balanced.
Well I wasn't talking about the success of Chinese companies, the discussion was about the respective work cultures. Now yeah, the success of those companies can prove that American managerial style is superior, but is American managerial style necessarily uniform in succesful Chinese companies? It could very well prove that the Chinese and by extension, East Asian managerial style can still yield results, afterall people who grow up in those cultures aren't likely to have much objections to things Americans would deam heavy handed.The successful ones are the ones that make it to Harvard Business Review after all, not the regular no name ones.
Huawei, BYD, Haier, Xiaomi are just a few successful examples.
There are also many "Chinese companies" actually managed by Taiwanese or HKers.
that doesn't necessarily contradict. Chinese management indeed may not be as flat as US style management, but I only said that it was less hierarchical than Taiwanese and Japanese.Well I wasn't talking about the success of Chinese companies, the discussion was about the respective work cultures. Now yeah, the success of those companies can prove that American managerial style is superior, but is American managerial style necessarily uniform in succesful Chinese companies? It could very well prove that the Chinese and by extension, East Asian managerial style can still yield results, afterall people who grow up in those cultures aren't likely to have much objections to things Americans would deam heavy handed.
In the end, nobody knows for sure, we can only care for the results. But I just wanted throw out there that while some Chinese companies have teams that emulate American managerial style, it is by no means a widely adopted practice in Chinese work culture.
After spending more than a decade at Chinese universities, Nowada said he does not necessarily agree with the popular view that China’s remarkable scientific results are made because research is better funded there than it is in Japan.
“I believe the environment that allows scientists to discuss anything among themselves is a major reason that China’s research capabilities improved,” he said.
But an expert on China’s approach to science, Atsushi Sunami, president of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, said institutional arrangement is key before everything else. China pressed ahead with university reforms on the government’s initiative and gave considerable discretion to members of university management, including presidents.
That created an environment that allows free research, where even young scientists have opportunities to be promoted and to win research grants if they are competent, Sunami said.
That we can agree on. China's for sure not as extreme as SK and Japan, at the very least Chinese women by far have the most freedom in the workspace of all the East Asian nations. My point was just that things like hiearchy and micromanagement might not exist to the extreme they do in those societies, but it is still present and not exactly in the same ballpark as America's more decentralized style.that doesn't necessarily contradict. Chinese management indeed may not be as flat as US style management, but I only said that it was less hierarchical than Taiwanese and Japanese.
Actual proof: Japanese scientists are fleeing to China because they have greater teamwork and more freedom at work. That's in their own words. They explicitly reject the idea that Chinese science is successful because of better funding.
This has been my personal experience too. From my mere personal subjective point of view, in terms of entrepreneurial/flat hierarchy in management it is EU>US>China>Japan>Taiwan>South Korea.
What are you so upset about? You wanna argue that Singapore is not a chauvinistic country?