Hacker News Reader

Comment by Larrikin | Hacker News Reader

Talking with friends that were international students, who also knew about the abuses of the current system, we came to the conclusion that to avoid abuse and get actual world class talent you would want to tier the system. Master's and PhD holders already benefit in the current system so better to expand the idea.

Undergraduate degree holders would only be rewarded for completing degrees in in the US in emerging and vital fields (mostly STEM). Awarding permanent residency to someone completing an Bachelors in communication at the worst college in the US is simply inviting abuse. Master's holders would get permanent residency in an expanding set of fields and ideally PhDs in every field. There may be some cases of abuse, but there should never be the case where a smart person educated in the US, especially in a growing or important field is forced out of the country because they didn't win a lottery.

View on HN

> Master's holders would get permanent residency in an expanding set of fields and ideally PhDs in every field.

Unfortunately, this is ripe for abuse. You're basically allowing educational institutions to sell green cards. If you thought almost-unlimited-student-loans inflated education prices, you don't even want to see what selling green cards would do.

> but there should never be the case where a smart person educated in the US, especially in a growing or important field is forced out of the country

I agree with the premise, but this is kind of like "It is better than 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be wrongly convicted". It sounds great in premise, but in practice can't reasonably happen. Again, I agree with your premise, but I think it needs to be approached in a different way.

> Unfortunately, this is ripe for abuse. You're basically allowing educational institutions to sell green cards. If you thought almost-unlimited-student-loans inflated education prices, you don't even want to see what selling green cards would do

That's pretty much how it's done in Australia. It props up a massive industry (education was the fourth largest export in 2018-2019) whilst ensuring a supply of qualified applicants for residency.

Prices for locals are still set by the government. So, whilst there is inflation, disadvantage to locals is limited to there being fewer places available to them. Whether it's morally okay is another question but the economics seem to work out pretty well.

Australia does /kind of/ do this with the skilled occupation list, but it's not like getting a Bachelor of Accounting means you are guaranteed a path to permanent residency (thanks to many of the recent visa pathway changes). Graduates from an Australian university can get a Temporary Graduate (485) Visa which lasts 2-4 years, but the pathway from then on usually requires getting an employer to sponsor your permanent residency (186/187) after 3 years of work experience, unless you get explicitly invited to some of the other programs (189/190)[+]. If you live in a regional area there are more options (887 for instance) but most people don't and might find it difficult to live in regional towns and cities.

As an immigrant to (and citizen of) Australia myself, I find it pretty appalling how hard it has become to become a permanent resident in Australia even if you are reasonably skilled (and the fact that permanent residency requires nomination by an employer -- which is unlike most other countries, where permanent residency is based on your own residence and skills). The work-based streams are becoming more and more narrow and it's longer the case that studying in Australia gives you any guaranteed pathway to residency (and I would argue it hasn't been the case for a fairly long time now).

[+]: A quick look at the EOI statistics <https://api.dynamic.reports.employment.gov.au/anonap/extensi...> shows that 7.2% ((LODGED+INVITED)/SUBMITTED ~= 7.2%) of people who register their interest end up being invited.

emerging and vital fields (mostly STEM)

You'd be surprised there. The degree that gives best odds in law school is actually philosophy. If you want to keep the tradition of Latin alive you need kids who have taken decent Latin in school. Chemistry and the life sciences, on the other hand, there is a terrifying oversupply of graduates. I agree with the need for quality control.

Yes I agree with this.

GP:> completing an Bachelors in communication at the worst college in the US

I think the key here should be "worst college in the US" and not the Bachelors in communication. If you got a communication degree from Mizzou or Columbia that's a totally different bar than a communication degree from a community college. The institutions and programs should be accredited, and demonstrate some standard of selectivity.

You want talented people in every field to stay in your country and create value and jobs, and selectivity for university admission is often a good proxy for that. The bar doesn't need to be insanely higher either; anyone who creates value and by doing so either directly or indirectly creates more jobs is worthwhile to keep.

If this is true regarding the philosophy degree then the student would continue on to the law degree to secure their residency. Regarding the saturated science fields they would then not be considered emerging nor vital.

Haha are you arguing that the US needs more lawyers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com