The great recession didn't just create a lost generation from un/under employment among millennials. It also denied many access to an education at all, and saddled the rest with mountains of debt.
Other than the cultural friction, etc. I don't see any reason why universities pursuing foreign students is immoral or unethical. They already do this at some level by courting out-of-state student fans via strong/popular sports programs, etc.
Edit: CMU-Sun Yat Sen tie up: https://jie.cmu.edu/ Bigger list here: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/420/foreign-campuses.html
That's a much smaller driving force than capital flight. The elites of those countries want to move assets and investment out of the country, so you buy the child a home (in-state tuition) you can move to after they graduate, send support money over to the student, etc.
The wealthy Chinese understand that US Dollars and the American are a more stable platform over the next few decades than China (which isn't terribly likely to exist as presently constituted by that point).
When Japanese nationals were buying up American property left and right, Americans took it as a sign that the Japanese economy would grow rapidly forever, and they'd take over the world.
In reality, Japanese elites knew better than anyone what the future held, and wanted to tie up their wealth in American assets.
Capital flight is a major, major factor.
It is not as simplistic as you think. Super rich people in China or India use similar financial instruments as those in the US to diversify, ensure good ROI, etc. Yes, US is a more stable economy. But there are smarter and more straightforward ways to tie yourself to the US growth rate than buying up a condo in Champaign, IL.
Also will it shock you to learn that people desire a US education because it is the best in the world? One way to think of it, if you can afford them: German luxury cars are among the best, so you buy a BMW or Merc; Italian sportscars are among the best, so you buy those; Milan and Paris fashion brands are among the best, so you buy those; likewise, US (along with UK 'Oxbridge') education is the best in the world so you go for that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/china-s-ca...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-07/key-to-chi...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12134684/Time-r...
It's a fairly common symptom of a financial crisis, and putting your family up in a new country and loading up on assets there is one of the more outwardly visible symptoms of it. (Again, see Japan's history–the data's in the OP's article.)
China's zero-unemployment policy have created some incredibly unsustainable trends, and they know it. Meanwhile, Beijing has to figure out how it's going to keep a nation that would span about five time zones unified, when they have a wealth disparity like the world's never known.
India, meanwhile, is destined to remain incredibly capital poor, despite being able to feed itself pretty handily. If you're a wealthy Indian elite, you're capital rich but constrained by your local geography.
Combine in the negative-interest-rate policies many countries have adopted, and the money's absolutely going to migrate away from that (as low as rates are elsewhere, they're still higher).
Anyway, I don't think wealthy Chinese nationals are limiting themselves to buying a condo in Champaign, IL. But when you expatriate large amounts of currency, winding up with a house and a few supercars in the destination country isn't a rare phenomenon.
And yeah, the colleges are good, too, but they were also good when we had comparatively few Chinese students attending them, too.
> One way to think of it, if you can afford them: German luxury cars are among the best, so you buy a BMW or Merc; Italian sportscars are among the best, so you buy those; Milan and Paris fashion brands are among the best, so you buy those; likewise, US (along with UK 'Oxbridge') education is the best in the world so you go for that.
Sure, but that doesn't explain the recent influx from China. Some of it's the artificial prosperity they created in the pursuit of a zero-unemployment/zero-revolt policy, but the reason it's changing is because their ship is sinking.
When a given people suddenly avail themselves of BMWs or Mercs, Ferraris or Chanel bags, at astonishingly higher rates than ever before, it's not just because those items are the best available–they have been for decades–it's because there's now both the cash to fund such an appetite, and the motivation to do so.
Unless China is just giving the US manufactured goods for free, that money has to be buying something.
Is it Congress or the many citizens who insist on tax cuts and vote to defund higher ed? Many of the same people ridicule higher education.
If we want higher education available to all, we have to pay for it.
> during the recession
It happened before and after the recession; it's not really a consequence of the Great Recession. The GOP has pushed these policies for decades.