Paris Impression

Top left: Cafe in Latin Quarter; top right: Shakespear Bookstore; Bottom left: Seine river; Bottom right: The Eifel tower, on a match label.

Montreal Impression

Baby care dos and donts

揭秘美国普通老百姓的真实收入

作者：萧家小朵


　　按照收入的高低，美国民众的收入大致分以下几个层次：

　　第一：个人年收入1-3万美元以下属于贫困或低收入人口

　　美国全职工作人员年收入在1万美元以下的人总计有145万人，占全职工作人员的1.5%。美国个人年收入在1万至2万美元以下的人有793万，占全职工作人员的8.5%。个人年收入在2万至3万美元以下的人有1453万，占全职工作人员的15.8%。

　　第二：收入在3-5万美元的中位收入群体

　　年收入3万至5万美元以下是美国人最常见的收入水平，这个收入段的全职工作人员人数有2882万人，占全职工作人数的31%。其中年收入3万至4万美元以下的人有1575万人，占全职工作人数的16.9%。年收入4万至5万美元以下的人有1318万人，占全职工作人数的14.1%。

　

　第三：年收入5-8万的中产阶级

　　个人年收入5万美元以上，是美国进入中产阶级的一个门槛，如果夫妻都有类似水平的工作，家庭收入到10万以上，那就是一个标准的中产阶级家庭了。在2010年，美国年收入5万美元以上的个人占全职工作人员的43%。

　　第四：年收入8万以上的富裕阶层

　　年收入8万至10万美元以下的人在美国可谓是中上收入水平，这个收入段的全职工作人员人数有626万人，占美国全职工作人数的6.7%。 而年收入10万美元以上的人自然是美国高收入的个人，这个收入段的全职工作人员人数有1071万人，占美国全职工作人数的11.5%。

　　从以上统计分析来看，收入在3-8万美元中等收入的群体占到了全职工作人数总数的近四分之三，而低收入和高收入阶层都只有一多一点。这样整个社会的收入呈橄榄型分配，是社会学家公认的比较理想的社会分配模式。

　　以上都是一些宏观统计数据，下面我来介绍一下我身边熟悉的人的真实收入情况，可以更具体直观了解美国老百姓的真实收入状况。为了保护个人隐私，不列出这些受访者的真实姓名。

　　美国高校在读博士生A: 来自国内著名高校，目前在美国phD 三年级学生，美国收入2.2万美元，主要是奖学金，学校免去大部分学费，但每年还是需要交纳3000-4000美元。最后收入18000-19000美元

　　实验室负责清洁工B：来自墨西哥的移民，年收入2.6万美元，有医疗保险和带薪假期等基本福利

　　美国大学教授(正教授)C: 年收入约12万美元左右，但变化较大，主要是因为每年获得科研经费不一样。

　　美国大学副教授(Associate professor)D: 年收入8-10万美元，收入也受科研经费多少的直接影响。

　　美国大学硕士毕业生E: 去年生物医学硕士毕业，目前在一家小的生物技术公司上班，年薪4.6万美元，有基本福利待遇。

　　美国博士后F，来自印度，博士后第三年，目前收入3.6万美元。

　　美国博士毕业生G:09年毕业，计算机专业，第一年年薪即高达9万美元，还包括很优厚的福利待遇(医疗，养老保险等)

　　沃尔玛收银员H: 美国普通高校本科毕业，两年工龄，收入3.2万美元. 据他说工龄长得员工的薪水可以达到4.0万美元

　　汽车维修店老板I: 年收入10万以上，具体多少，他没有透露。他手下聘用的两名技工，年收入4.8万美元。

　　中餐馆服务员J: 以J-2身份来美，在中餐馆做服务员(端盘子)，月收入可达2500美元，主要是小费收入。

　　建筑工人K: 主要工作是开一辆推土机，收入起伏很大，少则一年4.8万美元，如果工程多，可以高达8万美元，平均年薪5.8万美元。

　　邮局职员L: 负责每天邮件的收发。一年收入3.8万美元。

　　认识的最有钱的一位-牙科医生M，据说早已经是Millionaire了。年收入20多万美元。

　　注：以上人员都是在佛罗里达州附近工作。

　　可以看出，高学历一般会带来较高的收入，这一点在全球都通用(博士后除外)。最值得关注的是美国的蓝领阶层的收入很可观，甚至比很多所谓的白领和金领都要高。所以在美国，只要人吃苦耐劳，日子一定不会太难过。真正的穷人是那些没有学历，又没有技能而又懒惰的人，我想这样的人上哪里都不会有好日子过。文/佚名 (Yahoo)
01月09日 07:00

Does China Need High Test Scores?

An international standardized test, known as PISA, was held recently in many countries in order to survey the education attainment of students in math, science and reading. The top scorers of the chart, which seems to surprise many western educators, are students from Shanghai, China. According to the results of the test, Shanghai's 15-year-old students score higher in math, science and reading than developed countries such as Japan, Germany and USA.

How do I interpret this test score? Am I proud of it that my home country once again leads the world in another area? I am not sure.

So let's first acknowledge that what these top scores say about chinese students and some more general points about education in China. The stellar scores very likely come directly from the hard-working of the students taken the exam. Data shows that a chinese student in high school on average spend much more time studying than their western counterparts. Chinese parents value the importance of education to the point of obsession. Education is also highly valued culturally in the general society in China as well. Teachers are rewarded with rising wages and more respected social status. All of the above reflect the vision shared by both parents and students that knowledge is the key to succeed in the future competition.

Fair enough. But just don't forget one thing. Chinese students are trained to score in test. That's their jobs as good students. Being the only objective and fair way to select students for meritocratic education, examination has been the central part of the life of chinese students ever since kindergartens. You take exams to enter good elementary schools, then middle schools, then high schools, then colleges and even for jobs. So they really shouldn't be surprised with the top scores those shanghai students achieve. Let alone that this kind of "international competition" is another good chance to demonstrate how "successful" education in China has become, just like everything else. Imagine how hard the Shanghai authority would work to make sure that will happen.

So what do the high test scores achieved by these Shanghai students say about their abilities? First of all, in order to score highly in a standardized test, one need to memorize a lot of knowledge, and being able to quickly come up with solution to problems that are routine to them. That means, a high scorer in China's education system performs very well in solving problems which already have established answers, and is able to faithfully repeat what other people tell them to do. This kind of education can generate workers with high conformity, such as clerks and factory workers, or even low level technical staffs who can perform some advanced but established tasks.

What this kind of education can not generate, at least in large quantity, are innovators, entrepreneurs or leaders (IEL), who are exactly what China needs for its future.

There are 5 reasons why this test-oriented education can not generate IEL:

1. IEL requires independent, critical thinking, where you need to provide arguments to justify your answers, rather than tailoring your thinking to fit others' answers;
2. IEL requires extrapolating existing knowledge to look into uncharted areas, where no established answers are provided;
3. Instead of geting the same answers as others, IEL rewards arriving at a unique answer, and somehow making it work;
4. IEL, or pretty much all real world problem solving involves project-oriented solution: first identify a problem, and then divide it into smaller, more solvable sub-problems. Solutions to all the sub-problems are eventually optimized and linked into the solution of the whole project. However, a project is too big to put into a standardized test;
5. Innovations, especially in science and technology, require more than memorizing textbook knowledge and mechanically plugging numbers into equations. To truly innovate, one needs to understand the "spirit" of an existing knowledge, i.e. what problem that the knowledge is trying to solve? What are the assumptions behind the knowledge? What are the limitations? Unfortunately, challenging knowledge is not what a standardized test can evaluate.

Therefore, there is still a big gap between what the current, test-oriented education system in China, and what the future China's economy needs. High test-scorers are still a long way from the future innovators, entrepreneurs and leaders. The gap is not new to educators in China. But the fundamental question is, as long as the education resource is still behind the growing population who needs it, there's still a need to select students based on some sort of figures of merits. How can we make innovations, creativity and critical thinking a priority in education, while still maintain a measurable and transparent way to select students?

Using iPod Touch as an Air Mouse

Ever since we've got our HDTV, it's been tempting to hook it up with a PC/Mac and turn it into a digital entertainment center. That's exactly what we did: a simple VGA cable outputs the video to the TV. Now all I need is an air mouse to remote-control the PC while sitting comfortably on the couch.

While an air mouse typically costs $60-80 bucks, there's a cheap or even free solution, if you have an iPod touch or iPhone. Mobile Mouse is an application allowing you to turn your iPod into an Air Mouse. There is a free version and a paid version. The free version does a good job in providing a touch pad, a scroll bar and a keyboard. You can control the PC very well with just the free version. The paid version, which I got, adds the accelerometer mode, with which you can move the mouse pointer by moving the iPod in the air like a Wii remote. The motion-sensing is not as smooth as Wii though. The paid version also has additional modes, such as web mode, music mode and the ability to switch apps. It's a great app to have. Now we can surf the web, watch PPStream from the couch with our iPod Touch!

Steven Chu Going Downhill

Asked by the radio host of Chicago Public Radio, "Steven, how do you see going from all science to all politics?". Steven Chu, the Secretary of Department of Energy replies: "Well, I grew up in an environment where, becoming a professor in a University like Stanford is as high as you can get. From there then becoming the Dean of the department, and running a national lab is all like going downhill to me."