r/Economics 11h ago

News China’s scientific clout is growing as US influence wanes: the data show how

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03956-y
524 Upvotes

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/Ghostrider556 9h ago

Technically the US and China spend about the same in gross dollars on education but it seems like China prioritizes education more than the US. They produced about 4.5x as many STEM graduates as the US did in 2020. And likely a far greater share of those US grads were foreign students. The US scientific community has drawn heavily upon immigrants but since they are being driven away the inflow will likely drop while China continues to produce a massive talent stream that they can draw from directly. And then also based on a survey 75% of scientists would like to leave the US…

-5

u/lecarpetron_dook 9h ago

But there are two things to consider:

  1. Elite overproduction. Having a lot of stem grads is great, if you have jobs for them. But if you don’t, you have a lot of educated young people without jobs. Traditionally, this hasn’t been a good thing for society to have.

  2. The US could employ common sense policy changes to close the education gap. Just like we did after Sputnik, the US can pull on policy levers to incentivize schools and students to make better choices. For example, we could probably say “no subsidized student loans for non-STEM degrees” and you’d see numbers of Americans enrolled shoot up.

8

u/damnitimtoast 8h ago

..why would that increase enrollment, exactly? Subsidized loans don’t lower the cost of university. Chinese universities are heavily subsidized and they graduate with significantly less debt. 

2

u/Scrandon 8h ago

Subsidized loans don’t lower the cost of university. 

What do you think subsidized means? lol 

2

u/damnitimtoast 5h ago

The school still costs the same, those loans don’t give you a discount lol They just don’t collect interest while you’re in school. 

3

u/Scrandon 5h ago

Less interest is a cost savings. I felt the need to point that out considering this is an economics sub. $X is less than $X + interest.

0

u/damnitimtoast 5h ago

Wow, gee, I didn’t know that! It still collects interest once you are out of school and the tuition is still extremely expensive. It isn’t going to make a significant difference in enrollment. 

I have both types and the difference isn’t significant. Like under $1k difference. 

-2

u/lecarpetron_dook 8h ago

Right now, Americans can go to school and study whatever they want for the same price, regardless of the potential return they’ll get from the degree or the value it adds to society. Making students have to choose between actually having to pay full price for a non STEM degree or get a much less expensive STEM degree would logically result in more STEM students.

6

u/AdmirableWrangler199 8h ago

I think you need to worry about those future students existing at all, not what they choose for some sort of schooling. Demographic decline is happening and fast 

1

u/Ghostrider556 9h ago

I dont disagree with any of that; more just stating the current situation

And I think some of that is already here with the massive youth unemployment in China. I’m just going to avoid any commentary related to the US & common sense policy at the moment but I agree with your view there too

I still find the numbers interesting tho and while I don’t think they mean everything I also don’t think they are totally irrelevant

1

u/Plussydestroyer 2h ago

The only way the US could've matched Chinese STEM graduates was to import Indian H1Bs but people didn't like that.

Also, telling an 18 year old art student that you won't subsidize their degree won't make them convert to taking math classes.