Today, the Times published several letters in response, including one from Stuart Taylor of Los Angeles. Dr. Taylor’s letter, the second on this page, argues that the oversupply of scientists created by open immigration policy has negative effects on the United States because it leads to American scientists facing too-stiff competition for employment. Specifically,

Without stricter immigration policies, the oversupply of Ph.D.’s just gets worse and worse, with the result that in some fields immigrants are being given a large fraction of the jobs. These are science jobs that Americans want, are applying for and are being turned away from.

Wisely, Dr. Taylor does not argue that the large proportion of immigrant scientists has a negative effect on productivity in science. Rather, he argues that “It is harmful to trumpet the rest of the world’s students who are being given our jobs as “America’s Real Dream Team.”” His argument contains the assumption that given the choice between an American scientist and an immigrant scientist, there is some inherent good in favoring the American. He does not explicitly consider the possibility that the large fraction of jobs given to immigrant scientists are given to them because they are better prepared for those jobs than Americans are. Dr. Taylor would do well to consider the effects of his suggested policy of stricter immigration standards on productivity in fields employing PhD scientists. It seems evident to me that since employers are self-interested, they are employing the scientists they expect to be most productive, and as a result, the open supply of scientists from abroad leads to a net positive effect on the science produced in the United States.

Dr. Taylor does, however, mention an item of concern: the oversupply of PhDs in the current job market. This oversupply is generally attributed to one of two causes:

1. Standards for granting a PhD are too lax, and the degree is losing its signaling value;
2. Non-economic concerns lead students to pursue PhDs which are not necessary for their careers, leading to a glut of qualified applicants.

There is essentially no economic solution to situation (2). The solution to (1) would of course have to involve aligning incentives such that fewer PhDs are granted, but such a solution would be unpalatable and would likely have the effect of tightening admissions as well as graduation. As a result, fewer candidates who are not predicted to be highly successful would be given the chance to work toward a doctorate, and since predicting academic success is an imperfect process, it stands to reason that fewer brilliant scientists would be produced.

Instead, the solution to the oversupply of science PhDs is probably one that allows profit to be derived from them. Dr. Taylor should instead be arguing for incentives to run independent research and development labs, in order to put additional resources (i.e., unemployed scientists) to use. These incentives might take the form of tax credits or even more robust outsourcing on the part of major corporations similar to the X Prize model. After all, even a marginal PhD still has rigorous training in research methods and would present a benefit to a development lab.

This article focuses on the newfound prominence and effects of women in this Canadian federal election. New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton and Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have withdrawn their opposition to Green Party leader Elizabeth May joining in the televised party leaders’ debates; noted Green Party supporter Stephane Dion had long supported May’s presence at the debate, despite what author Jeffrey Simpson points out as the Greens’ likely result, siphoning votes and possibly seats from the Liberals. Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party, had vowed that 1/3 of the Grits’ candidates would be women, and he managed to run 106 women (about 3 more than the minimum he had promised). Prime Minister Harper, meanwhile, has adopted the mantle of “family-friendly candidate,” for no apparent reason; he sees this as a way of tapping into the vast number of female voters.

Thus far, however, Harper’s main campaign pledge has been to cut the federal excise taxes on diesel and aviation fuel. (Cite: This roundup article by several authors.) Even as Harper positioned himself as the family-friendly candidate, Dion has pledged to double the Conservatives’ $1200-per-year child care allowance and restore the Court Challenges Program, a funding program for lawsuits advancing language and equality rights. Dion, who claims anti-intellectualism on the Tories’ part, has summed his message up as “cut income taxes, shift to pollution”. Dipper Jack Layton joined the green bandwagon, attacking Big Oil.

Layton has also decried ad hominem politics in this election, suggesting that respect has left politics. The Globe and Mail, in a Friday editorial, agreed. The Conservative Party has blamed individuals for the two missteps thus far (Puffingate and the attack of a man whose son was lost fighting in Afghanistan), but the Globe and Mail argues that those gaffes were indicative of the party’s attitude generally. In order to win their majority, the editorial says, the Tories will need to raise the tone of the campaign.

And raise the tone they will – Harper, as discussed here, is attempting to make himself appear warmer. The linked editorial characterizes this focus as charming, especially in opposition to the concurrent United States Presidential election.:

In the U.S., voters have to worry about how to extricate themselves from the quagmire of Iraq, and who can bail them out of the worst credit crisis in 70 years, and how their nation can repair its shattered moral leadership in the world. Up here, we can debate for days over whether Ms. May ought to be allowed to play with the big guys. The stakes could not be smaller. How wonderful.

The New York Times crystallizes the election similarly:

Mr. Harper is not charismatic and often appears irritated, particularly when he is challenged. But his personal approval ratings in pre-election polls are significantly higher than those of Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader. Mr. Harper was named potentially “the best prime minister” by 50 percent, compared with 20 percent for Mr. Dion.

Mr. Dion, a former academic, is entering his first election as party leader. He speaks English awkwardly, and even in French, his first language, Mr. Dion at a podium can sound as if he were still lecturing dryly on public administration and political science at the Université de Montréal.

The other players in the Canadian election, of course, might consider the stakes quite large indeed. Particularly, the Bloc Quebecois is making an attempt to position itself as a much larger factor in the next government, and with that focus, they invite attacks from both sides of the fence. Former Parti Quebecois minister Jacques Brassard has accused the Bloc of being a clone of the NDP and pushing the sovereigntist portion of their party platform onto the back burner. Meanwhile, sociology professor Pierre Drouilly poo-poos the idea that the Bloc is a dying party – “The Bloc remains strong in and around Montreal. And if the Liberal support collapses, they may even win seats there,” he says, going on to predict that the BQ will win most of the 75 parliamentary seats in Quebec.

Are you interested in running your own numbers? Check out this projector. As for me? Predictions sound like analysis to me. I’ll just wait and see.

“I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.” – John McCain, suggesting a Question Period should be part of the President’s duties

In Friday’s Globe and Mail Opinion section, Preston Manning uses the metaphor of a circus to criticize certain aspects of the Canadian political system. Hardly anything unusual, but Mr. Manning is quite incisive with his specific metaphor – that of Cirque du Soleil wriggling into a monopoly held by the now-merged frontrunners of the old system (Ringling Brothers-Barnum & Bailey).

This comes a scant three weeks after the Congressional Research Service issued a report in which they vetted a parliamentary-style question period as it would apply in the United States. (The version here is cited from the Federation of American Scientists.) John McCain is of the opinion that a question period would be a good thing, while, in Manning’s view, the Canadian electorate would apparently be better served without it.

Discussion behind the cut.

Manning’s criticism:

These gong shows, in which the most aggressive political animals on both sides vie for 10-second evening news hits, have an increasingly negative image among the public. Yet this is the image of our parliamentary system most frequently presented on television, contributing significantly to the declining respect for politicians, parties and Parliament itself.

(… followed by a glib suggestion of an “Answer Period” in which the government is given a “meaningful opportunity to explain and defend their positions” as a replacement.) Thus, the criticism is not of the question period per se but of politics by sound bite. The CRS notes this on page 29, under the heading of “Intensification of Partisanship,” as well as touching on it two pages later as a “Quality of Debate” issue. The New York Times, ever optimistic, suggested in June that question periods “feature literate parries and thrusts, complete sentences, artful arguments, all to a chorus of noisy yeas and brays,” and that the tradition requires “gumption.”

Although I don’t have the data, or the gumption required to crunch the numbers, I would be very surprised if Question Periods actually lived up to the Times’ view of it – an exciting, intelligent forum for debate. Instead, I think the CRS’ view that it would be expensive and difficult to implement is more likely to be accurate.

Idea: For a specific session of Parliament, track topics discussed in the Canadian House of Commons. Starting in that session and exctending into the next, track new germane legislation introduced subsequent to questions as a proportion of all new legislation. Significant?