All those students, along with their talent and money and connections went _somewhere_ so that’s a shame for USA.
2. Top performing US students arent being crowded out by international students anyway.
Immigrants make up 14% of the population but start more than 20% of businesses.
44% of fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrants or their children. Steve Jobs' dad was a Syrian immigrant student. Elon Musk was on F1, J1, and H1B visa.
Every benefit must be judged by its cost.
In this case, it's self-funding. International students subsidize much cheaper in-state tuition.
And if you mean them getting spots in the more prestigious institutions, well, it's not clear whether that will even happen (the few thousand international students admitted to the top universities are not the ones that are likely to decline their acceptance letters), but even if it did, well, those universities are simply not as prestigious anymore.
Attracting the best talent from anywhere in the world is a huge part of what created their prestige, and that's even before we get to how they're losing funding, and professors and researchers to other countries.
Go look at a current list of people at Princeton’s IAS and count how many are former international students.
Money? Yes.
Talent and connections? Not necessarily.
Top PhD students are still coming to America.
It’s the money-grabbing 12-month masters programs that are the problem.
Come buy a F-1 student visa for $200k! It’s the Trump silver card.
They probably are, and that won't stop anytime soon. The question is how much talent is being lost now.
The admin stopping some research for no reason probably got a lot of PhD students quite distrustful of the US, that could cause some of them to go back after their thesis. Top PhD often choose countries for the lab director and the thesis subject. The US lost a few lab directors in the last 6 months, and at least in therapeutic engineering this year doesn't propose a lot of new thesis subjects (less than last year it seems), but maybe they keep them for their own students.
Fixed that for you. Wealth distribution is far from equitable and immigration by and large benefits the wealthy. They financially benefit from the cheap labor and are mostly immune from the downsides.
The US did great for hundreds of years with the limited immigration we had from primarily European countries. The world we live in today was built with that approach. Remains to be seen if importing from recently modernized / 3rd world countries provides any long term benefit for median Americans. We’d be much better off installing billionaires who wish to invest in the people because they feel an attachment to the people (noblesse oblige).
I can’t really see a good argument for foreigners outside of the Meiji government approach (learn from them to invest in our own) if you care about your people.
Or a visit to California railroad museum documenting Japanese immigrants building railroads?
One or two of poor ones would end up committing suicide in the spring when they flunked out and had spent their entire little farming family's fortune back in some austere rice farming village.
It was quite the sight to see. I want to say they were fairly normal in intelligence, relatively, but the set of incentives for them to perform were wildly different.
Depends on tier of university.
At Harvard, MIT, Stanford, the asian international students are moderately rich (US$10 million+ net worth) from tech or manufacturing businesses.
Fwiw there’s like 1000 Bugattis in the world so you really must have gone somewhere super duper elite! Monaco perhaps?
Also, no source for claim.
I can say, that 99% of those students are much less obese than the average US citizen
Gifted, driven kids, the kind who will leave their family and everything they've known, to cross an ocean to study in your country, are a scarce resource.
I'm not saying you shouldn't prioritize locals, but if you want competitive, world-class educational system, you should be open to foreign students and faculty helping to keep your system competitive. It's the same worldwide, whether it's in Singapore's NUS, or Oxford, or Saudi Arabia's KAUST.
But, what do I even know?
Operation Dropshot and Unthinkable called for hundreds of nukes and conventional bombs to be dropped on Soviet cities to, "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire."
All in all, I don't even have a dog in the fight, but people like Qian Xuesen won't become retarded if they're expelled from the US. If I remember correctly, something like a third of all top-tier AI researchers are Chinese. If you count all those with an immigration background, they'll be close to 50-70%. They will simply create companies and products that compete and take market share from American companies.
Are Americans - the country that votes out presidents for rising gas prices - willing to make do with a lower standard of living? Because that'd what you'll get when some the world's best innovators are no longer based in your country.
Trade and innovation benefits all of mankind. A rising tide lifts all ships. Having multiple countries becoming successful instead of the US simply monopolizing talent would benefit the world.
> Glad Qian Xuesen helped China improve their missile innovation.
Nuclear Deterrence should be spread far and wide so no one bad actor can get into power and bully others.
In particular, it is a marginal detriment to the US. That’s why my original comment said this loss is a shame for USA.
Which is indeed a benefit for their countries.
And is a loss for the US.
The brain drain was real and the US was the beneficiary and that may be ending soon.
Not sure what your point is? Are you happy that the US will be worse off than it was before?
Now, America wants to reduce its debt and curb industrial powers like the EU, Japan, China, etc. but it doesn't want to give up its exorbitant privilege that got it into the debt whole in the first place.
You can't have it both ways.
It could be a result of numerous causes.
My point still stands.
Now, if you want to limit non-European immigration, it's a personal opinion and you have a right to it, but you can't make a blanket statement that, "everything worked better," or misinterpret data to say what you want.
Don't pretend you're being data-driven when you've made up your mind and now you're trying to torture the data into saying what you want.
What metrics are you measuring by?
So, while it seemed like you were trying to argue logically, it appears your argument is: I don't like non-Europeans. And you're trying to massage the data into showing your opinion is data-driven because it can't stand on its own merit.
But, feel free to change my mind with more data.
Or, there's risk to being in their home country where academic freedom might not really be a thing.
it's like why if you show serious promise in soccer at a young age, you go to Europe as soon as you can - you will be better developed there in a more mature environment as opposed to, say, the USA where you can only get decent coaching in a few major cities, and even then the gulf between the coaching at a top Spanish or English club versus an American one is huge. Or if you show promise in tennis at a young age, you get your ass to Florida as soon as you are able to.
Also, smarts needed to bootstrap modern infrastructure from scratch with limited resources are different than smarts needed to design a popular app, for example.
Americans built modern infrastructure with our limited 'average' brains.
Should be simple for actual smart people.
Having worked with everyone over the course of my life from PhDs to construction workers, I'm going to have to hard disagree on this one. Just because someone is gifted in one area, does not mean their intelligence or domain expertise applies everywhere. Domain expertise is a real thing.
It's about maximizing your potential, and being in the best environment to do so. Building up that capacity might sound nice in theory, but in practice, you go where you can to get the best results possible.
They just happened to all be super smart at coding Java?
Also I feel like it's not a good assumption that talented international students that come to top tier universities also have the same western vision of meritocracy and sharing their achievements with the globe.
Most Americans are not.
If we want to have top-tier universities, and produce graduates capable of innovating and taking big risk, we need to have universities who are strong in STEM.
If we want to have universities who are strong in STEM, we need to fill up those seats because otherwise without students, there are no classes.
IDGAF where they come from, to be honest.