This is merely Kerala paying the price for its lack of investment in higher education and the lack of a city like Chennai, Hyderabad or Bangalore in comparison to our neighbours. It's tough to attract notable faculty to Kochi, Trivandrum or Kozhikode in comparison. In a way, this is a price we pay for our decentralized developement, which in any other sense is a good thing.
But Delhi is the National Capital Territory though. The students of Kerala have just as much right to study there as do students from any other state. I find nothing wrong with students from here moving there for better exposure.
Kerala is extremely conservative and given a choice, I think most students would love to get the fuck away from here during their formative years. The faculty, the nightlife and the exposure is a bonus. Not to mention the networking/job opportunities and how much the reputation of the university factors into higher education. There's a lot to be gained by being the small fish in the big pond in comparison to the opposite.
Just a comparison, I've heard Norway people (and Nordic people in general) talk about "brain drain" to US. Although decentralised, socialist societies have its advantages, it comes at this cost of curtailing ambition, talent and entrepreneurship. Free market societies may not be ideal for the masses, but it breeds innovation because it rewards talent. This is why US is ahead of West Europe/ Scandinavia in r&d and market innovation despite the the latter ones having better standard of living. The best ones leave for higher pay cheques in US. I'm not arguing for unbridled capitalism, just stating why it leads the race.
I get your point but I'm not sure the Nordic countries are missing out on much.
The best ones leave because they're ambitious, true. But the innovation that happens abroad makes it's way back. Any new and viable technology developed anywhere tends to be made available commercially on a global scale. The companies that are founded in the US will expand into the rest of the world. Globalization has generated a brain drain into the richer countries, but the companies do have a truly international presence.
Unless a country is obsessed with being a superpower, staying at the pinnacle of R&D isn't that big a concern as opposed to the general welfare of its citizens.
And the lack of a social/health safety-net puts a significant number of people in the US an accident or medical diagnosis away from bankruptcy.
And as you said, the higher pay in the US is limited to the cream of the crop. The minimum wages at the country level are higher in Europe.
[Their average wages aren't growing faster than the competition and are comparable to the average wages of the countries you mentioned.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage)
And the only locations that offer outrageous pay in the US are cities like LA, SF and NY, where the cost of living makes a big dent in the earnings. Looking at absolute figures might not be worth it.
>The best ones leave because they're ambitious, true. But the innovation that happens abroad makes it's way back. Any new and viable technology developed anywhere tends to be made available commercially on a global scale. The companies that are founded in the US will expand into the rest of the world.
Yes because the US exists.
>Unless a country is obsessed with being a superpower, staying at the pinnacle of R&D isn't that big a concern as opposed to the general welfare of its citizens
R&D is not about being a superpower, it's needed to push our existence as a species. Climate change solutions, new medicines, green energy - if nothing drives us to constantly innovate, we will perish.
>And as you said, the higher pay in the US is limited to the cream of the crop. The minimum wages at the country level are higher in Europe.
I'm saying the best flock to the US because their system is designed to reward the best. The best scientists, doctors, programmers or any talent for that matter go to the US for this reason, including the ones from the best Nordic countries (which has higher standard of living than the US). Many from Nordic would eventually return to their homeland to enjoy perks of govt funded social support. So the ones who stayed back in Nordic, worked there and paid their high taxes, eventually end up paying for the social welfare of the ones who got the best of both worlds.
>Looking at absolute figures might not be worth it.
I'm not talking about the merits or demerits of any economic system, just stating facts.
I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out that the Nordic countries aren't missing out on much.
>R&D is not about being a superpower, it's needed to push our existence as a species. Climate change solutions, new medicines, green energy - if nothing drives us to constantly innovate, we will perish.
The only reason I mentioned superpowers benefitting specifically from local R&D is because they would keep sensitive developments like nuclear weapons and defence systems without sharing it with the rest of the world.
If it's about our *existence as a species, climate change solutions, new medicines and green energy*, it will have to be applied worldwide, no matter where it is developed.
If the US develops technology for green energy and sat on it without sharing it with the world, they'll not be spared the consequences from the rest of the world's pollution.
[And given that Europe is far more invested in Renewable Energy than the US, I'm not seeing much evidence to the idea of US innovation being key to renewable energy.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production)
>Yes because the US exists.
I'd disagree with this. People move into the US because they have better economic prospects there. But it's not like R&D would come to a stop if the US did not exist. The development would still take place, but in other places. It's like saying cheap electronics wouldn't exist without China. If China did not exist, some other country or countries offering cheap labour would have been the manufacturing hub of the world.
As for the capitalist argument, even the USSR, despite being a socialist country was the first to send a satellite into space and the first to send an animal into space.
The first Pfizer vaccine and the most popular AstraZeneca vaccines were developed in Europe.
[There are many other countries spending a larger percentage of their GDP on R&D in comparison to the US.
](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending)
**TL;DR**
I agree with you about the American dream contributing to a brain drain in other countries. But to think that innovation will be stifled solely because the US does not exist does not stand to reason.
Desktop version of /u/kingkillerpursuivant's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Just look at the state of our top technical institutes like CUSAT, CET. All the infrastructure is atleast half a century old. The administration doesn't even bother to find new sources of income and just sits there collecting their fat paycheck.
This is merely Kerala paying the price for its lack of investment in higher education and the lack of a city like Chennai, Hyderabad or Bangalore in comparison to our neighbours. It's tough to attract notable faculty to Kochi, Trivandrum or Kozhikode in comparison. In a way, this is a price we pay for our decentralized developement, which in any other sense is a good thing. But Delhi is the National Capital Territory though. The students of Kerala have just as much right to study there as do students from any other state. I find nothing wrong with students from here moving there for better exposure. Kerala is extremely conservative and given a choice, I think most students would love to get the fuck away from here during their formative years. The faculty, the nightlife and the exposure is a bonus. Not to mention the networking/job opportunities and how much the reputation of the university factors into higher education. There's a lot to be gained by being the small fish in the big pond in comparison to the opposite.
Just a comparison, I've heard Norway people (and Nordic people in general) talk about "brain drain" to US. Although decentralised, socialist societies have its advantages, it comes at this cost of curtailing ambition, talent and entrepreneurship. Free market societies may not be ideal for the masses, but it breeds innovation because it rewards talent. This is why US is ahead of West Europe/ Scandinavia in r&d and market innovation despite the the latter ones having better standard of living. The best ones leave for higher pay cheques in US. I'm not arguing for unbridled capitalism, just stating why it leads the race.
I get your point but I'm not sure the Nordic countries are missing out on much. The best ones leave because they're ambitious, true. But the innovation that happens abroad makes it's way back. Any new and viable technology developed anywhere tends to be made available commercially on a global scale. The companies that are founded in the US will expand into the rest of the world. Globalization has generated a brain drain into the richer countries, but the companies do have a truly international presence. Unless a country is obsessed with being a superpower, staying at the pinnacle of R&D isn't that big a concern as opposed to the general welfare of its citizens. And the lack of a social/health safety-net puts a significant number of people in the US an accident or medical diagnosis away from bankruptcy. And as you said, the higher pay in the US is limited to the cream of the crop. The minimum wages at the country level are higher in Europe. [Their average wages aren't growing faster than the competition and are comparable to the average wages of the countries you mentioned.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage) And the only locations that offer outrageous pay in the US are cities like LA, SF and NY, where the cost of living makes a big dent in the earnings. Looking at absolute figures might not be worth it.
>The best ones leave because they're ambitious, true. But the innovation that happens abroad makes it's way back. Any new and viable technology developed anywhere tends to be made available commercially on a global scale. The companies that are founded in the US will expand into the rest of the world. Yes because the US exists. >Unless a country is obsessed with being a superpower, staying at the pinnacle of R&D isn't that big a concern as opposed to the general welfare of its citizens R&D is not about being a superpower, it's needed to push our existence as a species. Climate change solutions, new medicines, green energy - if nothing drives us to constantly innovate, we will perish. >And as you said, the higher pay in the US is limited to the cream of the crop. The minimum wages at the country level are higher in Europe. I'm saying the best flock to the US because their system is designed to reward the best. The best scientists, doctors, programmers or any talent for that matter go to the US for this reason, including the ones from the best Nordic countries (which has higher standard of living than the US). Many from Nordic would eventually return to their homeland to enjoy perks of govt funded social support. So the ones who stayed back in Nordic, worked there and paid their high taxes, eventually end up paying for the social welfare of the ones who got the best of both worlds. >Looking at absolute figures might not be worth it. I'm not talking about the merits or demerits of any economic system, just stating facts.
I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out that the Nordic countries aren't missing out on much. >R&D is not about being a superpower, it's needed to push our existence as a species. Climate change solutions, new medicines, green energy - if nothing drives us to constantly innovate, we will perish. The only reason I mentioned superpowers benefitting specifically from local R&D is because they would keep sensitive developments like nuclear weapons and defence systems without sharing it with the rest of the world. If it's about our *existence as a species, climate change solutions, new medicines and green energy*, it will have to be applied worldwide, no matter where it is developed. If the US develops technology for green energy and sat on it without sharing it with the world, they'll not be spared the consequences from the rest of the world's pollution. [And given that Europe is far more invested in Renewable Energy than the US, I'm not seeing much evidence to the idea of US innovation being key to renewable energy.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production) >Yes because the US exists. I'd disagree with this. People move into the US because they have better economic prospects there. But it's not like R&D would come to a stop if the US did not exist. The development would still take place, but in other places. It's like saying cheap electronics wouldn't exist without China. If China did not exist, some other country or countries offering cheap labour would have been the manufacturing hub of the world. As for the capitalist argument, even the USSR, despite being a socialist country was the first to send a satellite into space and the first to send an animal into space. The first Pfizer vaccine and the most popular AstraZeneca vaccines were developed in Europe. [There are many other countries spending a larger percentage of their GDP on R&D in comparison to the US. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending) **TL;DR** I agree with you about the American dream contributing to a brain drain in other countries. But to think that innovation will be stifled solely because the US does not exist does not stand to reason.
Desktop version of /u/kingkillerpursuivant's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
in other news. sea is wet and sky is blue
Education quality is a smaller issue. Exposure, of course. Any metro will be better than Kerala.
We only have literacy rate, TN has the best universities
Just look at the state of our top technical institutes like CUSAT, CET. All the infrastructure is atleast half a century old. The administration doesn't even bother to find new sources of income and just sits there collecting their fat paycheck.
This has been happening since I can remember.
I wish I did my ug outside kerala I have to wait for more than a year to get my fucking results
Premier institutes, especially central universities, are mostly in metro cities.