Major Changes to Student Visa Rules Proposed | Hacker News Reader

Major Changes to Student Visa Rules Proposed

insidehighered.com

35 pointstheBashShell47 comments

When I was younger, I remember countries lamenting the brain drain to the US and saying that it was a major problem for research and education in a lot of countries.

I don't think anyone would have ever imagined that the US government would be nice enough to try to solve that problem and give up willingly their advantage like this. It's rare to see such altruistic leadership willing to sacrifice their own country for the good of others.

It is great for the US when smart people move there permanently, but the country shouldn't ignore the fact that there are significant issues for US citizens.

The biggest may be the way that it displaces native students who've often been paying big taxes over the years to improve the schools. Yet they get bumped to a lower tier school or forced to pay for private education.

It's one thing when the incoming talent is undeniable, but in many cases schools will actively (and openly!) search for foreign students who pay substantially more in tuition.

There are also problems with language for some incoming students. I know of at least one state school that is actively turning away state residents while scolding the professors for grading foreign students for poor grammar and English writing.

A lot of these schools are using foreign students to subsidize their operations. Government funding to state universities has been falling, so if they can get thousands of foreign students to pay $50k/year that can help minimize tuition increases or spending cuts which impact the state's citizens.

This seems to be a complex problem to solve. On one hand you don't want to lose access to the smartest minds, on the other you don't want your citizens to suffer from lower quality education because of it. But its also a very economic issue, in the sense that most foreign students pay handsomely to attend prestigious schools, so it makes short term economic sense to trade education for their wealth, meanwhile students at home must take on massive debt to compete economically to be of interest to the institutions.

I feel like this is more of an economic issue than an education issue at heart. I agree that in most cases the incoming talent is not undeniable, so there is little argument for favoring foreign students over domestic students besides an economic one. Somehow foreign students, universities acting as corporations, and global trade has created the mess of the current education system which includes our whole student loan fiasco which makes the younger generation quit before they even start. It seems that colleges have lost sight of being primarily a system to educate the next generation.

Its a similar issue to american businesses taking their jobs overseas, but instead american colleges have, in some sense, taken their education overseas.

> there is little argument for favoring foreign students over domestic students besides an economic one

How about an educational one? Colleges put a huge of effort into recruiting diverse student bodies, one justification being that students learn from interacting with classmates of different backgrounds. This is most often cited as a reason for racial and economic diversity, but when I was in college I found it applied much more strongly to diversity of nationalities. I took a seminar on the history of revolutions which I found was improved by the fact that I got to hear what my French classmate had to say about the French Revolution and what my Latin American classmate thought about Simón Bolívar. I did an art/graphics project with a German student who taught me about the Bauhaus style, which we took inspiration from. My language and linguistics classes were vastly improved by having native speakers of other languages easily available. And it was a bit uncomfortable, but I think it was valuable that I got to talk about LGBT issues with students who had recently come from countries where queer people are much less visible/accepted. As a native student, my education would have been impoverished if I hadn't had as many foreign classmates, and I think I probably would have benefited from having even more.

> It seems that colleges have lost sight of being primarily a system to educate the next generation.

International students are also part of the next generation.

Brain drains are not solved by removing the pull, but by giving the people opportunities to develop themselves in their country of origin.

Elon Musk wouldn't have been able to do what he did had he continued living in SA.

Oh for sure, I was sarcastic, and I'm hypocritical saying this given that I've left my native country 20 years ago (mostly due to the fact that it was not an ideal country to start a business due to heavy bureaucracy and taxes). Brain drain is a result of a combination of the pull, as you said, the advantages offered by other countries and the push, limited opportunities, obstacles that exist if they stay in their own country

The US had a great advantage going on due to a combination of factors that they are reducing with their own policies.

This specifically hurts foreign PhD students, because it routinely takes longer than four years to graduate from a PhD program. Considering some graduate students are overwhelmingly foreign (81% for Electrical Engineering, 69% for statistics, even Agricultural Engineering is majority foreign), what will this do for science and engineering? Will these students study someplace else, will they continue to study in the US regardless of this change, or will they simply be less educated.

If they study someplace else then the US loses some competitive advantage of attracting highly educated and motivated individuals into the country where they often stay.

If they simply don’t become as educated then the entire world suffers as the envelop of science and engineering isn’t pushed by as many minds. Having more PhD electrical engineers in the world is a critical piece to having more and better electronics in the world.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/10/11/foreign...

Cutting the numbers of foreign PhD students is very likely the point.

There is a widespread view inside Washington that allowing foreign advanced degree students hurts US competitiveness because they "steal" US knowledge to take back to their home countries.

That would make sense. 4 years is the right number to “not really” hurt UG and MS but for sure hurt all PhDs.

Then give them incentives to become US citizens! Why aren't we brain draining our competitors? We had the perfect setup to do so. Now we may be too unattractive and too long gone.

Most foreign students aren't white. Letting them stay in America doesn't play well in states that have a deficit of educated people and a surplus of electoral college votes.

Wow, that’s definitely something that needs to change then. It’s shooting yourself in the foot to deny the usefulness of other human beings simply because they are not European.

That said... there is a historical record of people complaining about Irish, Polish, Italian, Greek, and Spanish immigrants. Essentially every wave of immigration has been met with hostility.

So it seems the whole they are not X like us, is just an excuse.

And yet they're basically super cheap labor compared to their skills that will probably stay in the US afterwards.

How much do PhD students make ?

are US citizens incentivized enough to go the PhD route vs a foreign student whose only path to the US is the PhD program?

As a PhD student this is heavily dependent on what grants you can get. Glass door says the average student salary is $27k, so $5k less than median salary in the US and less than half of what a high school teacher makes. A PhD graduate makes, on average, ~$100K, which is within 10% of the average Software Engineer salary.

There are a lot of incentives to become a phd for us citizens. You can be called doctor. You have some level of social prestige. You can specialize in something that really interests you. Some jobs that might be appealing require a PhD. The cash incentives aren’t there. There are faster paths for larger pots fo money.

For perspective PhD students I recommend The PhD grind. If that doesn’t scare you away than maybe it’s the right path for you. Link to a discussion about the book. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4179982

Dump of links where I got my dollar figures from.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/us-phd-student-salary-SRC...

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_(PhD)/...

https://www.indeed.com/career/software-engineer/salaries

https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/high-school-teach...

I don't understand the point of this. Your stay is anyways only authorized for the time period specified in your I-20 (which can be extended by the university). Looks like a strategy to shore up visa fees for USCIS.

The biggest risk here is USCIS processing timelines are long and unpredictable. If you don't get your visa extension approved within 240 days of expiry you would have to leave the country and get your visa stamped in the consulate. Major pain for students from Iran and China.

Instead of having a proper overstay tracking and enforcement system for individuals and universities abusing F1 visa they are punishing entire nationalities of students.

I guess they don’t want the I-20 to be extended by the university but only by DHS.

But yeah, USCIS processing time is a nightmare. I don’t see where your 240 days comes from. Adjustment of status ? You have 30 days to leave when your I-20 expire.

If you apply for an extension before your visa expires you have 240 days before you become out of status and your stay becomes unauthorized. You then start accruing illegal stay which could lead to bans on future entry to the US.

It makes sense in the context of the current administration, which has been making it harder for people to immigrate to the US, treating certain people of color less fairly and reducing access to education. This move satisfies all of this, really, and the first two were campaign promises!

It also reduces foreign applicants to American colleges, and since foreigners have been carrying the bulk of the tuition load for most colleges, it will also negatively impact colleges and lead them to cutting various programs.

Which is another massive win for this administration. After all their leader loves the poorly educated.

Currently, student visas are good for “duration of status,” meaning students can stay in the U.S. indefinitely if they remain enrolled in school and otherwise abide by the rules relevant to their immigration status.

This is an asinine proposal. Visa != status. An (non-)immigrant can stay in the US as long as their status is valid, even with an expired visa. They only need a valid visa to come back on departing the US.

Rather than affecting frauds and overstays this will disproportionately affect the honest students who travel to their home country during vacations because they will now have to keep applying for a new visa more frequently.

Most likely the article uses the word Visa to mean Legal status. So it’s about the time you’re allowed to be in the US, not the authorization to enter.

Then it is even more ridiculous. USCIS is backlogged and takes 6 months for routine applications. More so, students cannot stay enrolled "indefinitely"; the I-20 generated by USCIS has an expiry - generally the duration of the program or maybe a year longer - but never indefinite.

Even if there is a need for such a proposal why not set it to the general duration of the program + 1 year, which is 5 years for Bachelors, 3 years for Masters and so on?

Having to ask DHS for the authorization to continue your PhD after 4 years. Crazy.

It’s already far from guaranteed to be allowed to stay after a PhD. Now you won’t even know if you’ll be allowed to finish.

4 years doesn't sound bad to me. I studied for a MS in Finland and you have to renew your student visa every year.

Was it difficult? :)

Getting the first visa was pretty difficult and required a lot of paperwork. The renewal process was much easier as you just had to prove your studies are progressing on time and that you have a source of income and private healthcare (you're not eligible for public healthcare). It takes a few months for them to process the decision, which makes it pretty stressful.

Are these (proposed) rule changes more in-line with other nations? I’ve looked at student visas years ago but many of them were very strict and required taking English competency exams, with extension requirements. And when traveling on a work visa I wasn’t allowed to even pay for classes.

“Among other changes, the proposed rule would limit the time students could spend in English language training to no more than two years over a lifetime and impose limits on the number of times students can change programs at the same degree level or move to a program at a lower degree level”

I’m actually surprised that wasn’t already a rule, and probably has been ripe for abuse!

Does it really matter if students change degree programs or go after an additional lower degree level than they already have? Being a student is still a full time time occupation, the university is extracting increased tuition from international students, and the local businesses around the university have access to more customers. I don’t see how it’s an abuse, I see it as a win for the community.

> Are these (proposed) rule changes more in-line with other nations?

Why should it be in-line with other nations?

Isn’t “in line with other nations” the obvious standard one should be aspiring for when they have a world leading system?

Are these (proposed) rule changes more in-line with other nations?

Yes and no. In other countries visa (or a permit card) == status. You can get it renewed in a week in the country of residence (meaning they don't have to travel to their home country for renewal).

In the US however, visa and status are two different things. You can remain a legal resident with a valid status but an expired visa. You only need a visa to re-enter the country.

Yes, it took me a while to appreciate the difference between a "visa" and "status" (in U.S. parlance). The analogy in my head:

Visa = permission to apply for entry (i.e. like an unexpired password to login)

Status = permission to stay (i.e. like a logged-in session)

So a visa is like authentication credentials with an expiring password (only needed to apply for entry or re-entry, can expire during session), and status is like authorization (token needs to remain unexpired throughout the session, otherwise will be in violation).

https://internationalaffairs.uchicago.edu/page/visa-vs-statu...

" ... citizens of countries with student and exchange visitor visa overstay rates exceeding 10 percent would only be eligible for two-year visas with the possibility for renewal"

Why should the overstay rate inform the duration of a visa? I can understand it playing a part in whether a visa is issued or not. But if someone is going to overstay, a 1-day visa is also sufficient for them to overstay indefinitely.

The article uses “visa” to mean Legal status, ie, wether you’re allowed to be in the country or not.

>Among other changes, the proposed rule would limit the time students could spend in English language training to no more than two years over a lifetime and impose limits on the number of times students can change programs at the same degree level or move to a program at a lower degree level

So, if you can't learn English in two years you're basically fucked?

I think it is meant for students for whom learning English is the main, or the only focus of their college program. Probably because that's the easiest thing to abuse for the extended stay in the US: if you're studying hard subjects, like, say, Mathematics, then you need to put in a lot of effort to pass your exams and stay enrolled. When you're studying English, after two years it becomes easy, so you can stay enrolled, but spend zero time attending classes, just show up for the exams every few months.

If anyone assumes good faith in this they're a fool. This is nothing but making it more onerous for non-US citizens and to essentially punish them for daring to want something that "WE" have.

How does it compare to U.K. rules or Australia & NZ?

Should that matter? The US holds itself up as better than other countries, as the best. We should be the example.

I think it should matter, as a point of discussion. I don't think it should be definitive. I certainly don't think the goal of US immigration policy (or student visa policy) should be to exceed a dismal policy somewhere else by a feather.

I may also disagree that the US universally holds itself up as better than other countries. In many widespread institutions (mainstream media, academia, Hollywood), I'd say the widespread, majority opinion is that the US is notably worse in many regards than many other European countries or Canada (I may in fact agree on some points, though maybe not as broadly). Within that context, I do think it's reasonable to note that according to a poster above, Finland (a country widely lauded in the US for its education system) subjects foreign graduate students to a stressful yearly renewal process for a student visa. Or that Canada, a country often used as a stand-in for a better, more progressive US, has a points system that rewards youth, fluency in one of two Western European languages, and high levels of education.

Should conditions in widely admired countries matter? Sure. This shouldn't be a conversation ender. But yes, it is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

Of course it matters. The UK and Australia are perceived as countries with fair immigration systems.

Why would the US be held to a different standard than other Western countries?

Because the US has benefited greatly from the current system of highly educated immigration?

To the point that those countries are trying to achieve what the US has.

I mean, why would you want to set your standard as “what the other guys are doing” when your current system is the most successful in the world?

Are you arguing those other countries haven’t benefited from highly skilled immigration? I’m from one of those countries and higher education is filled with skilled immigrants.

And the US’ success in attracting highly skilled immigrants isn’t only due to the immigration system itself. In fact. In many cases it’s in spite of it.

I don’t think it’s about holding yourself up as better

Ther must be an objective goal beyond being “nice”

One goal is reciprocity - you want your citizens to have the benefit to study abroad therefore you reciprocate to foreign students

Another aspect is getting access to the best talent on the planet, then getting them to stay and advance technology in your country

There needs to be a balance where admitting foreign students does not displace local students.

Maybe cap the number of foreign students or use their tuition money to increase seats for local students?

How is this relevant to the discussion here?

Is this action targeting students from those countries?

Is anyone claiming that the UK, Australia or NZ are abusing US student visas?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com