It certainly depends on what you optimize for. For example, about 1/3 of the 320 American Nobel Prizes in science have gone to immigrants.

Currently, US universities license around 3,000 patents, 3,200 copyrights and 1,600 other licenses to startups and companies. They spin out over 1,100 science-based startups yearly, creating countless products and tens of thousands of jobs.

This university/government partnership became the model other countries try to copy post WWII, though the current administration has walked away from it.

The genius of the US system was indirect cost reimbursement. The government not only paid researchers' salaries but also funded their facilities and administration costs. This was the secret sauce that built world-class university labs that attracted scientists globally, causing other countries to worry about "brain drain" to the decentralized, collaborative US ecosystem combining massive government funding for university research with private industry scaling the solutions.

Meanwhile, Britain tried a centralized approach with government labs, achieving breakthroughs but lacking the scale, integration and capital to compete in the post-war world.

As the partner of someone who works at Harvard, I have a slight insight into what's happening there. Disclaimer: I may have misunderstood my partner when she described Harvard admissions.

As a rule, foreign students usually pay the full cost of attending Harvard. Then there are legacy students. Many domestic students, primarily low-income or socioeconomically disadvantaged ones, get significant aid, including a full ride.

Typically, empires attracted the top 10% of the peripheral/vassal nations. Look at Rome, for example. It is a sign of global standing that premier educational institutions of country X are flooded with the top performers of the other nations. Most importantly (and this is the reason this has been practiced by world powers throughout history) having the elite of a nation be educated in one's institutions guarantees a sizable cadre of influential men and women who go back home and create an 'Atlanticist' front.

Reasonable question.

It depends, at top level, what the intention is. What the US government thinks it is buying. Is it buying global improvement in research? If so, surely you just hire smartest people out there. In fact it will probably be mostly non-Americans, because even if they come from a much-better-than-average educational system, still, they are something like 4% of global population.

Ok, so let's say not this. Perhaps US govt is strictly buying (indirect) improvement to US economy. Well, a lot of these students will stay in the US, find startups, or simply become good taxpayers. Most developed countries struggle to grow or keep their societies steady, US has this funnel of highly skilled workforce - universities. Even better, since these immigrants, if they stay, won't have generated primary education costs, and if they eventually leave, also will cost less in adult life than people who stay in the US all their life.

This is about undergrads, really. Postgraduate students are more like hard, underpaid jobs. People come and go, and perform the service of churning out research for an American University.

Finally, not sure how much the US govt is paying for these foreign undergrads. Rich undergrads will have to lay a good chunk of their own fees - perhaps all, either via cash or loans they have to repay.

I'm not in any way endorsing this kerfuffle, but it's always good to be clear why you are paying for things, as sooner or later someone will challenge it.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but at one time it was believed that there was a foreign policy angle: The people who come here end up liking our country and bringing that good will back home with them. They also learn the reality of what it's like here, which is often contrary to the propaganda that they've received at home.

They also spread the prestige of Harvard. If Harvard were to adopt US-only admissions, their reputation would go down, and the degree would be less valuable for the remaining American students.

What's the proper ratio? If you want the best and brightest, statistically the vast majority will be from outside the US. Doesn't it benefit us to capture those people into our economy?

It’s because Harvard profits from selling fast-track access to american immigration.

> Why should mostly wealthy foreign students benefit from US taxpayers funding?

Because it gets elites from across the globe to send their children to the US, including lots of money.

Harvard is looking for the best and americans make up less than 5% of the world. Why would all the best applicants be from the US/why should harvard give domestic students an admissions benefit?

Part of it is money but also part of it is, in my opinion, a view that nationalism is evil and leads to Nazism.

> Here's maybe a dumb question

serious question, why did you think your question might be dumb?