I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US but have no desire to get permanent residency. Especially at public uni's and NSF funded programmes at private colleges.
I don't think this comment draws the distinction between people who came here without long-term plans, and people who came here and left because they felt they would not be welcome long-term.
Why? If I (an American) studied in the UK, did I somehow betray the British by returning to the U.S. after? I paid tuition, I contributed to the economy while there, I helped bridge cultural gaps.
Your example is also peculiar because of the relationship between the US and UK, any advantages you gained in the UK might help the US instead of the UK but it will not harm the UK's security or industry because of friendly relations, legal cooperations and extradition treaties. China and countries not friendly to the US training people in the US who will go back and develop industry and technological advantage all on US taxpayer's dime isn't the same thing. Even when you pay tuition, a public uni or a gov sponsored grant is subsidizing much of the cost you would otherwise been expected to pay.
But why do you believe that? You're asking for the article to prove that isn't the case, and I'm asking in all earnestness, what is the argument that it would be the case?
I mean, student visas don't even allow most of them to stay if they wanted to, you can look up student visa stats for China to find proof for my point.
I know a guy whose wife was once a bank teller, near a major (public) US research university. By his telling, arriving Chinese (mainland) college students typically opened their bank accounts with mid-6-figure deposits.
Perhaps you should talk to someone in the tourism or hospitality industry, about your great new idea of turning away pay-top-dollar customers en mass?
(And maybe also talk to an average research staffer doing NSF-funded research, about just how wretched the pay, hours, and job security are. Sunk Cost fallacies and social status aside, many of those folks would really be better off mowing lawns and flipping burgers.)
Of course the NSF should pay more, but saying “people don’t want these jobs” is more of a cheapskate slogan to justify exploitation.
Also rather than a fixed number of slots most schools grow and shrink based on demand. That’s why so many more people can get educated vs 40 or even 20 years ago. There’s generally a huge surplus of people willing to teach outside of a few niche areas.
And for your "taxpayers foot the bill"? I live near the University of Michigan. Total "public university" state funding, per student, is maybe $7,000 per year. Vs. out-of-state undergraduate students are charged a ~$40,000 per year premium, over in-state tuition rates. (BTW, U of M total enrollment has increased ~50% in the past 30 years. Building more classrooms and hiring more staff is easy stuff, from a U-M Executive Suite PoV.)
My NSF point was not that NSF should pay more. It was that your "foreign nationals...NSF funded programs" argument is not logical. If we're paying crap wages to "best and brightest" foreign nationals, while American drop-outs do better flipping burgers...that sure doesn't sound like "them" taking advantage of "us". Quite the opposite.
Research funded by foreign powers can still improve people’s lives with the added benefit that we don’t have to pay for it. Currently China has a terrible reputation when it comes to science, but there are also useful discoveries taking place.
That’s not to say there are zero downsides, but the vast majority of information these people are receiving is already freely available. US universities are world class, but there’s already some quite competitive schools in many other countries including China.
It’s a complicated topic with plenty of ambiguity, but on net the US is economically better off with these students. You can argue about past funding for these institutions, but at worst the net subsidy is minuscule compared to what foreign investors of US companies are receiving.
You could point to research grants for graduate students, but these people are doing actual work at below market rates. It’s comparable to H1B’s except they are paid less and more of that money is funneled back into the US economy.