A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave
arxiv.org
arxiv.org
Given all that, where are professors supposed to find and hire students who don't want to stay in academia themselves? I think a lot of these students wind up being aspiring immigrants, and I'm not surprised that a lot of them would also have a hard time finding a place for themselves after graduating and that many of them would leave. Also, the abstract seems to argue that that US still benefits greatly from this arrangement: "though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share."
This would be better for everyone involved, at the admitted cost of being quite a bit more expensive. My guess is that the market would naturally converge on this equilibrium if the information of job placement rates on a per-program (or even per lab/advisor) were more readily available.
My group currently employs two people of the description you have, and it does reduce the need for students (and honestly, increase productivity).
It's also by far the most stressful part of my job. Funding them involves writing multiple grants per year (because the expectation of any particular grant is low, even with a decent hit rate) and I am constantly worried that I won't be able to keep them employed.
If one of them leaves this year, I'm not likely to replace them, simply because in the current funding environment, I can't look someone in the eye and promise them a long term position. There are so many more ways to fund a student, and they're inherently time limited, so even if things collapse, there's ways to white knuckle through it in a way there aren't for staff scientists.
I'm not religious, but I think a lot of academic funding is wasteful.
A person arrives on a 18 month funded postdoc (believe me, plenty exist). They have just completed a PhD which means they probably have a couple papers published and maybe another one or two in the pipeline. So as they spin up their time with you, they are also finishing these papers from their previous job. By six months in they are done with that and fully onboarded to the project. So they spend six months working. But now, they only have six months left of contract. You don't have money to keep them or perhaps your country will require you to offer a permanent contract if it is being renewed so you cannot offer them to extend their position with you. So they spend the final six months of their postdoc looking for a job. So, for 18 months of salary, you get six to eight months of work. It's unreasonable. Things need to change.
Or lets say you have a mission critical project that must be done by a postdoc. You offer them a 3 year contract that is grant funded. It is three years because most grant agencies work on three year cycles. The project requires a year commitment to building an apparatus (maybe its a lab experiment, maybe it's training some foundation model, whatever). After that year, the apparatus can be used for science. Your postdoc comes to you in year 2 month 3 and says, well I have been offered a faculty position at university X so I am leaving in the fall. So you get 18 months of work out of them and now cannot hire anyone else because you only have 18 months of funding left, but your country requires you to offer a minimum of 24 months contract. Things need to change.
It's important to note that academics often keep projects from their former positions going at their new ones. But as soon as someone leaves to industry, this falls apart. Because industrial positions expect the person to work on the project they specify, they rarely hire someone to work as an academic, pursuing their own research directions.
I think the solution here is as others have suggested, spend more money on hiring people for longer term and with higher salaries. But we shall see if anyone listens to that advice.
Not to mention that the type of research being done has drastically changed too. There's many more projects that require wide collaboration. You're not going to do something like CERN, DESI, LIGO, or many other scientific mega projects from a single lab, or even single field of study.
The academic deal has changed. It used to be that by becoming a professor you were granted facilities and time to carry out your research. In return you had to help educate and foster the next generation. It is mutually beneficial. There were definitely abusers of the system, but it is generally not too difficult to tell who in your own department is trying to take advantage of the system, but incredibly difficult to identify these people when looking from the perspective of a university administration. There's been more centralization in the university administration and I'm afraid Goodhart's Law is in full force now.
What I'd like to see is more a return to the Laissez-faire approach. It shouldn't be completely relaxed, but to summarize Mervin Kelly (who ran Bell Labs): "You don't manage a bunch of geniuses, they already know what needs to be worked on. That's what makes them experts in the first place." At the end of the day we can't run academia like a business and it really shouldn't be. The profits generated from academia are less direct and more distributed through society. Evaluating universities by focusing on their expenditures and direct profits alone is incredibly naive. We're better able to make less naive evaluations today, but we still typically don't (it is still fairly complex)
But having a strong training pipeline for the globe is a huge plus for US prestige, and the top people are still offered jobs as faculty or industry within the country, so it still a net gain for USA. But it’s brutally competitive for the individual scientists
The current information assymetry is exploitative. One of two things would happen under my proposed system: either nothing would change because students think they are getting a good deal as is or students don't think the deal is worth it which means that the current system only works because students are having the reality of the job market hidden from them.
There is a lot of work in research that fits the permanent worker better than the fresh 22 year old. But having that fresh talent is really beneficial to science.
The problem is in my opinion not this low job placement rate per se (it is very easy to find out that this is the case for basically every prospective researcher). The problem rather is the "politics" involved in filling these positions, and additionally the fact that positions are commonly filled by what is currently "fashionable". If you, for some (often good) reason, did good research in an area that simply did not become "fashionable": good luck finding an academic position.
> Your suggestion would have fewer fresh eyes to look at the problem
But the current system has a problem of training people for a job and then sending them to do something else. Even a professorship is a very different job than a graduate researcher or postdoc. Most professors do little research themselves these days, instead managing research. Don't you think that's a little odd, not to mention wasteful? We definitely should have managers, and managers with research backgrounds themselves, but why not let people continue honing their research skills?
> it’s brutally competitive for the individual scientists
Like what's even the alternative? We want a Steve Jobs of science? That's really what we are going for?
Scientific progress is largely driven by the “Steve Jobs” of sciences.
Only a tiny fraction of papers remain relevant. So that means the quality of the average paper doesn’t matter as much as the quality of the best paper.
That said, multiple discovery seems to be more common nowadays due to the rapid diffusion of information, which means that most people are operating in roughly the same information environment (initial conditions) when they start their research. It is interesting how often multiple discovery happens when you start to look closely at this.
The problem, as always, is funding. In the US, the federal govt is essentially the only “customer” of basic research. There’s some private funding, often from kooky millionaires who want someone to invent a time machine, but it’s the exception that proves the rule. Universities sometimes have pure research roles, but they’re generally dependent on the employee paying themselves with a constant stream of grants. It’s a stressful and precarious position.
It certainly doesn't seem to be paying a lot for post docs, grad students, (who are either contributing their own tuition or getting it contributed by someone else anyway), adjuncts, or other non-professor faculty, since they famously make starvation wages.
I'm being a bit facetious, since tuition has "transparent" line items stating how much goes to what, but university revenue streams are a bit baffling. Mountains of money go in, and mountains of money go out, but the two seem to have a very indirect relationship at times.
And I know, the common answer is that it goes to some nebulous "administration", but the executive administrative staff, while reasonably well compensated, make a pretty small portion of the overall budget, and the rest of the admin seems like it could be more reasonably be split into the actual services and departments they're administering, which, again, seem adequately funded between grants, donors, and tuition. So I'm not clear what all this ambiguous "administration" that's not executive staff and not tied directly to, say, health insurance (which gets paid for as part of tuition) or research (grants). What are they administering??
Expanding on this a bit, insight credited to bonoboTP: in a steady state the number of junior faculty positions will only open up at the same rate as current faculty retires. But each faculty member is expected to train dozens of students that are all in principle qualified for such jobs. Therefore, the vast majority, let's say 95%, of PhD graduates have to take industry jobs, there is no way around it. But this does not seem to be the goal of the 95%, hence the incredibly tight job market. Returning to their home country for a faculty job acts as another release valve, but sooner or later those will be filled as well, except in countries in the rapidly expanding phase in terms of university education.
The tenure system is incredibly broken as a result. Ideally, I think there needs to be more non-faculty careers available for PhD graduates either outside or inside academia. After all, there is clearly some value in the work a PhD student does, otherwise they would not be paid. Perhaps we can have public or semi-public research institutions that hire these scientists for actual development. Most likely this will require an upstream incentive change so that grants are awarded to these newly minted organizations.
Universities charge a large overhead in part to cover the "tuition" for the PhD students, which is really a meaningless number since it's taken out of the same check they give you the remainder of. If we just strip out this part and give most of it to the scientist, economically it should be a viable salary.
I had one day when I'd posted a Java applet to the web that got 100,000 impressions and getting so much attention for that and so little attention for papers that took me a year to write made me resolve to tell my thesis advisor that I was going to quit. Before I could tell him, he told me he had just a year of funding for me and I thought.. I could tough it out for a year. People were shocked when I did a postdoc when most of my cohort were going straight to finance.
My mental health went downhill in Germany and I stomped away, in retrospect I was the only native English speaker at the institute and I could have found a place for myself for some time had I taken on the task of proofreading papers and I can easily imagine I could have made it in academia but heck, life on a horse farm doing many sorts of software development has been a blast.
I should have mentioned that my dad's degree was in chemistry, and it might have been a different vibe. But the production of PhDs at a rate faster than they could be absorbed by academic hiring was a thing. My dad (and mom, she got her master's in chemistry) went into industry too, so maybe I was lucky to have good role models.
For awhile, I loved that my field had lots of opportunities outside academia for PhD students, and that they were held in pretty equal regard, prestige wise, with academic positions.
Then the current administration gutted the entire field.
The fact that many PhDs leave is..normal..if you get few high impact publications you can find full time positions outside US, even as an associate professor and not just a researcher.
And the reason why many go to universities around the world for PhDs is not because they want to stay in that place necessarily but because you're more likely to fund your PhD research and get a high impact publication.
The whole system essentially self selects for cheap labor and exploitation.
If the feds put a high salary requirement on it like the E or O series visas, perhaps the system might change.
The scientific minds of India, China, and Russia don't come to the US and slave away in the lab purely out of passion for advancing science, they do so because it's a path towards the green card. The PIs and laboratory heads all know damn well how the system works, they are no better than those bosses of H1B sweatshops, except perhaps they do their exploitation from ivy filled ivory towers rather than in Patagonia vests.
In my observation there do exist quite some people among the PIs and laboratory heads who are quite highly idealistic for research, but have no other option than playing this rigged game of academia.
Quit after two semesters.
> where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available.
BUT you are missing that there is still demand for positions out in industry as well as government labs. But there's also a decline in that right now as we're going through a time of encouraging more engineering and less research.
In reality there's a pipeline of research. If you haven't been introduced to it, I like to point to NASA's TRL (Technology Readiness Level) chart[0]. The pipeline is from very basic research to proven systems. Traditionally academia and government labs do the majority of work in the low TRL while industry research handles mid level (stuff that isn't quite ready for production). The reason for this is due to the higher rate of failure of low level research and so shifts risks away from industry. Not to mention that industry has different incentives and is going to be more narrowly focused. Academia and gov labs can research more long term projects that will have large revenue growths but may take decades to get those returns. I mean how much do we get from the invention of calculus? Or the creation of WWW? We'd also get far less growth and profits were these not more distributed.
So while yes, getting a professorship is a challenge and highly competitive, it is far from the only path for these graduates. We can also do a lot to increase (or decrease) their options by increasing (or decreasing) funding for science. There's a lot of science that happens outside academic labs and they still depend on PhD graduates to be able to do most of that work. If you want these people to have jobs, fund more low level research[1]
> I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more help finding a job in industry after they graduate.
I mean even putting the personal experience to the side, don't we want to make the most use of the resources we have? Don't we want to get graduates connected to labs/work places where they will be most effective? This is still a surprisingly complex problem to resolve and even limiting the hiring problem to PhDs (where there's far less noise than general hiring) it is still a complicated problem.
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-...
[1] But I'd also say that we might be encouraging too many people to do PhDs. Doing a PhD "for a job" is a bit odd. A masters is better intended for that. But a PhD is more directed towards doing research work. That said, in the worst case a PhD says "this person can work on ill-defined tasks and has the diligence to see them through." Regardless of the industry, that is a pretty useful skill.
Very few companies and industries want employees who
- are very conscientious ("has the diligence to see [the tasks] through"), and
- are much more effective working on their own, i.e. are no "team players" because they don't really need a team ("this person can work on ill-defined tasks").
I believe there will be a significant "discontinuity" in the data beginning in 2025. Likely along the lines of (1) US-born science majors going abroad for their PhD's (and likely staying there afterwards), and (2) a major decline in foreign students coming to the US. Blocking disbursement of ongoing grants, immediate and dramatic slashing funding for the sciences, holding up universities under pain of blocking federal funding, eliminating fellowships, firing government scientists, stuffing agencies and commissions with politically appointed yes men, having oaths of fealty in all but name, deporting and blocking return of foreign students, and many more actions of similar character tend to fo that.
One of the greatest national scientific establishments was irreparably damaged in a matter of months. No discussion, no process -- just pulling the rug out. The US will coast for a few years on the technologies that just popped out of the university pipeline of development, but that pipeline is now essentially broken.
We tend to overestimate the short term effects due to polarization and the constant media cycle.
Multiple of my children have considered moving abroad to study. It's weird to sit between them and their frustration of the system, and their grandparents (our parents) who seem to think that the crap they're embibing off of fox news, all so that advertisers can target/fleece the older generation, will actually lead to good for their grandchildren.
Today they are bloated with administration that is nothing but a cost center, meanwhile they eliminate tenured professorships and have classes taught by tenuous adjunct faculty who are paid poverty wages. Universities could easily right the ship by cutting the administration and focusing on teaching and research, but the people who need to make the decision to do that are the ones who would be cut.
Tuition is one of the few levers left, and while people will object to tuition hikes for in-state students, very few people will do the same for foreign students.
In my experience, the large influx of foreign students are typically at the masters level. MS classes are typically (not always lol!) more advanced than undergraduate classes. So, you need more qualified instructors, such as your tenured/tenure track faculty to teach them. When you take T/TT faculty out of undergraduate classes and replace them with teaching faculty, you lose a lot. (Let me know if you need what's lost to be spelled out.)
I guess it is not strictly necessary, but it brings in a lot more money, which the university is of course very eager to take.
It's devastating when you learn so many of society's problems are due to this.
Those probably aren't STEM PhD students, whose tuition (especially at Ivies!) is normally paid for out of research grants or teaching funds.
For a final project, we built a cool autopilot, and demoed it on several vehicles, including a precision dropper airplane, and a sailboat.
The airplane happened to be slightly better than what the USAF admitted to having at the time.
There were 5 of us working on that project, including 1 US citizen.
The citizen got a NASA internship out of it. The rest of us were put on a list and I for one had a very tough time getting a green card later on even with a NIW.
I shudder to think what this maladministration is doing to foreign STEM students now!
There was a whole thing if you recall in the first Trump admin about treating tuition waivers as income, which at an Ivy is potentially a financially catastrophic thing for a grad student.
This is the plan not a coincidence. China pays huge “grants” to their citizens to come to the US, get educated, work in big tech/science, then bring it all home.
X00,000 USD is... not a lot anymore. That's normal compensation for high tier jobs, aka PRC tier1 opportunities is simply default globally competitive especially when you factor in other allowances. Top tier 1000 talent tier inducements where PRC build you a lab, give 7 digit in guaranteed funding, aka exactly the kind of opportunities bamboo ceiling is cutting off in US is pretty rare, almost rounding error in overall flow of talent. NVM DoJ has prosecuted ~0/150 thousand talent cases for actual espionage, i.e. never uncovered anything but candidates double dipping on PRC and NIH/NSF grants.
I don't know what billionaires capita flighting fraction of their liquidity has to do with anything. Ultimately whats more damaging for geopolitical S&T competition, capital flight, or knowledge flight.
We need a well managed set of immigration polices or country WILL take advantage of US. These are our military rivals and we sell our most advanced math, physics and engineering seats to the highest bidder. It’s a self districting disaster and it’s not just on us to treat people better.
Look at the rate of Indian asylum seekers in Canada to see the most extreme case. It happens anywhere you extend naivety and boundless good will.
This percentage is going to go up sharply in near future.
Can someone please substatiate this claim? Many people I know are begining to question this and Id like to know more.
(arguably is not an easy read, but if you're looking for hard data is probably worth giving a shot)
If they are in balance, then it looks a lot less of a problem. It may even be the case that because of the desirability of working in the US for US institutions the US is gaining the best from all around the world and shipping out a more mixed ability set.
That sounds like net benefit for the US. Foreign nationals come, the US sells them (overpriced) education, they do relatively low-paid but high-value PhD research, and then most of them stay and continue to contribute to US research endeavors and the economy. This is such an enviable position, and this administration wants to close the doors? This is the secret sauce. This is what has made america great.
The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development. While I dont agree with the sentiment, its not entirely incorrect to describe such relationships are parasitic more then symbiotic when they become increasingly one-sided. Why should Americans be exporting PHDs to other countries when they dont seem to be reaping the benefits?
"they" as in the USA or its people?
Germany has taxpayer-subsidized education even for foreign students. They may stay, the may leave. One of its views is that the time the student spent in the country helps foster cultural ties and understanding, and generates goodwill towards the country...
I suppose "goodwill" is hard to translate to cold hard cash, so America doesn't really like it ;-)
I think the rhetoric is the cause, not the response to that sense (besides the obvious feedback loop). Internationalism created a world of unprecendented - literally in human history - freedom, peace and prosperity. You can see what things look like with even the beginnings of nationalism.
I know the hackernews audience skews more affluent and wealthy, with demographics pulling from more developed coastal cities, but the vast majority of citizens do not exist in such living conditions. Focusing entirely on the development an prosperity of only a handful of our cities is what has created the perfect fertile soil for Xenophobia to grow. I dont see the rhetoric as the cause, just the motions of opportunists taking advantage of a situation that we are all at fault for. Despite all the freedom, peace, and prosperity, its so unevenly distributed that many citizens live in squalor rivaling some destitute underdeveloped nations.
In fact, a huge number of the people that are in that class would resent you for classifying them in this way. And the same is true for those in the upper middle class, or elites.
Secondly, trying to scope the xenophobia problem to just the working class is itself a bit of a misdirection. Plenty of that comes from the swaths of upper middle class white collar folks. And plenty of it comes from second gen immigrants who are eager to be counted among the natives.
The xenophobia _is_ the substitute American culture provides as a filler for the vacuum left by the lack of any sort of class identity. Everybody falls over themselves demonstrating how they can be "more American" in one way or the other. Who is a "real" American, what their qualities are, whether this particular thing or that particular thing is more or less American, etc. etc.
It's an alternate focus to direct all that shame the culture demands from the poor.
Nevertheless responding to your question:
>Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share
US education must be in a woeful state because that is the definition of export.
Given the exclusivity and value of the service you'd think you'd want to hang on to it, but I guess xenophobia is one thing that is more important than money.
That is, very much, a substantial form of payment.
That "growing sense" is not growing organically, it's being energetically fertilized. The problem isn't that most Americans aren't benefiting from global goodwill and development, it's that they aren't benefiting from domestic development. And the minority who are benefiting disproportionately from domestic economic growth are expending significant resources to convince everybody else that the problem lies with the rest of the world.
I'm not sure I buy your claim that this is the reason for the rhetoric. And if you're right that this is the reason for the rhetoric, it's extremely flawed reasoning.
Of course it's incorrect, but without the diminishing material conditions, it's a lot harder to get people to drum up the energy to be racist.
And imagined diminishing material conditions are just as effective as actual diminishing material conditions!
Is that what we’re calling the $8-9 TRILLION spent killing millions of people across the world from the failed “Global War or Terror?”
Tell me where all this goodwill and development is happening
> The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development
"Increasingly few Americans are" getting to evade the consequence of wealth concentration and monopolies. Large parts of the US economy have been starved by monopolist practices in the past decennia. I recently linked a very approachable documentary¹ from ARTE, in thee parts, if you want to understand what is really happening.
1. https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/103517-001-A/capitalism-in-ame...
Bit of a shame for the hassle though, the documentary is very good and the topics it touches are rarely highlighted. So give it an other try.
Obviously, any hopes evaporated with China’s heavy-handed approach to Hong Kong.
It has upskilled academia in those countries, but we also lost talent who could have remained here.
You hit the nail on the head on developing countries not being as poor anymore, and opportunties proliferating which reduces the pull factor, but there are a decent amount of academics and professionals who would gladly work in the US if given the opportunity and it wasn't such a headache.
10-15 years ago my foreign grad students all wanted to stay. Only question was how.
There was always a big crowd who found the process of staying in the US painful, random, humiliating, and sometimes even downright abusive, so they went home.
What has really changed is China. That's what this paper shows too. Many of the Chinese students want go back home.
10-15 years ago when I would talk to grad students from China most wanted freedom and democracy. Now most tell me about how the Western system has failed and how a centralized government is more efficient.
Between making it harder to stay, China changing the narrative on dictatorships, and the West doing a horrific job in the last decade on pretty much every front, yeah, we're going to see a lot of folks move back.
Note: This is at a top-tier US university.
Today it is an easier case to stay, although 996 is still a thing. Still, if you can make your FU money by age 35 (and it still has to be by age 35 according to a relative), you have it set.
There was no "change of narrative", the West just stopped delivering, similar to what happened to the Soviet system starting with the 1970s (and which ended the way it did by the early 1990s).
What I mean is that if you don't like the company you work for in, say, SF, you can switch companies without having to switch houses. In Academia... it's akin to going to conservatory for classical music: you have to travel to where the orchestral openings are. This is a bit of a legacy problem from Wilhelm von Humboldt's idea to combine teaching and research, which led to the modern university system.
I'm far from the first person to say this, btw. Convergent Research's "Focused Research Organization" concept as well as The Arc and Astera Institutes are a few recent examples of people trying to provide escape routes from having to deal the large degree of "institutional tech/systems debt" in university contexts. For a great essay on why this is necessary, see "A Vision of Meta-science" (highly recommended if you are interested) [1].
The good news is that people are starting to come around to the idea that the scientific ecosystem would benefit from more diversity in the shape, size, and form of science-generating institutions.=The NSF just announced a new program to fund such "independent research organizations." I think this could give people who want to go into the sciences as a second career and who have a bit of an entrepreneurial tendency a new kind of Job opportunity [2]. We talk about Founders all of the time in Tech, we should probably have some equivalent in the best possible sense of the term, in the Sciences.
[1] https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/ [2] https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-new-initiative-launch...
> 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating.
For people missing the abstract, here it is and I'm giving emphesis to an important part.
Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades. ***Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. These results highlight the value that the US derives from training foreign scientists - not only when they stay, but even when they leave.***
While personally I'd staple Green Cards to every Ph.D. given to a foreign national, I simultaneously want them to go back to their home countries and make their countries better. To take the good from America, leave the bad, and to build lasting relationships between the countries. That's a win-win situation. Both countries benefit from this! As well as the people. (I'd staple Green Cards so the person can make that choice.)
I haven't read the whole paper (nor will I), but I get the impression that much of this will not be addressed in it. Perfectly okay, they're focused on the easier to measure parts. But let's also not forget that there is a whole lot more to the bigger picture here. A whole lot more than my comment even implies.
I'm jealous of tech people who live in media-sovereign countries like the US, China or Russia who don't have to experience algorithm discrimination.
IMO, tech/science people who leave the US before accumulating big money are making a mistake. They underestimate how rigged the tech industry is. You've got to leverage the rigging. You either benefit from the rigging or you are victim of it. I cannot wrap my mind around people who are born in the US and leave. People don't understand how lucky and privileged they are before it's gone.
[...]
> Emigration rates across PhD cohorts correlate strongly with the foreign national share of graduates ( = 0.86 to 0.95) [...] In all cohorts, the 5-year (15-year) emigration rate is approximately 25% (50%) of the foreign national share
I am not sure if they did this on purpose or not but they missed putting that critical part in the title or right in the abstract. The majority here are not US citizens but foreign nationals. And, most importantly, I couldn't find where they mentioned (or maybe they don't) that these students are studying in US on non-immigrant visas. They're not supposed to or expected to stay after they are done studying. Some stay if they find a company to sponsor them for an internship (Optional Practical Training) but unless they change their visa type they're still expected to leave for their home country.
Without that part highlighted it makes it sound like these US citizens who were born and grew up in US, went to universities here, and then graduated and went to work in China or Europe or something. There is a number of those but, it's not the majority. Maybe they can study just that cohort separately, I think that would be a more interesting thing to look at.
What is a natural, good flow for people between economies in this instance? is it zero or 100% where along this arc does it lie, and why?
No wonder people just give up and leave.
If you asked any American how hard he should have it, they'd probably expect he just needed to fill out a form, pay $150, and wait 1-2 years.
Perhaps it is a good thing that innovation is not encumbered by patents as much in other countries as it has been in the US.
> Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades
The US has been completely dominant in technology innovation for the last several decades. So, the answer is no: the loss of 1/4 of the STEM scientists is not important.
Immigrants are being chased out of the US in record numbers. Many of my friends with brown skin (second generation immigrants) are worried their kids will be harrassed by ICE, etc.
The sad fact is that there are a LOT of Americans who deeply resent when someone from another country comes to the US, works hard, and earns a prosperous and happy life.
The US is now led by an emotional revenge-driven crusade against the American Dream, against capitalism, against the "melting pot" that fuels culture and innovation. It's a weird kind of revenge idiocracy going on right now.
In case it's not obvious, many of us here are deeply ashamed of what is going on and we will make it right eventually. I'm personally looking forward to the lawsuits that end up paying people mistreated by ICE significant sums of money, give them flights back to the US, etc. The US has a labor shortage and a talent shortage right now, we need the best and brightest, the most hard working, etc., not the lazy ones who think they are owed something and believe the orange clown.
> Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades
Also, I did not assert that either party is "good" on immigration. The US should relax restrictions and allow many more immigrants to enter/study/work/live.
If we really want growth, fully open borders would double world GDP.
> Given these findings, a corollary question is what attracts foreign graduate students to the US and leads them to stay. Prior research points to immigration policy—a subject of perennial public interest—having a large effect on stay rates
Generally speaking, American exceptionalism is nonsense. The US isn't the only free country, the freest country, the only democratic country, the most democratic country, the richest country, the most diverse country, a city on the hill, divinely inspired, uniquely blessed by God, the only capitalist country, any of that nonsense. It was some of those when Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, but it hasn't been for decades. But the US's research university system is unique in the world, and nobody else even comes close.
Numerous doctoral students (and postdocs, and adjuncts) are competing for a much smaller number of tenure-track positions with their research work. If their publication record looks just a little better than the #2 candidate, they can escape from the postdoc grind and land a nice assistant professorship. Then it's only seven more years of busting their ass before they find out whether they washed out, or are set for life with a cushy associate professorship, maybe a full professorship.
People are willing to sacrifice a lot for that. But the vast majority of those who make the sacrifice don't make it, like the #2 bidder in the dollar auction. They put in years on somewhat-above-minimum-wage grad-student and postdoc stipends, doing incredibly difficult and sometimes dangerous work, often postponing childbearing, leaving behind their families each time they have to move to a new university, and either leaving behind their intimate partners or uprooting them as well. All of that redounds to the glory of the PI who runs the lab they work in—but many of those doing all that work regret the sacrifice.
Scientific progress isn't just a matter of doling out research grants and possessing fancy lab equipment. It needs talent, but that isn't nearly enough—the talented people need to work incredibly hard for many years to make real progress. For decades the US has been recruiting the top talent from the rest of the world with this dollar-auction game, paying them peanuts to sacrifice the best years of their lives.
A doctorate doesn't sound like a bad life to me, really. But you have to feel that the system, like minor-league baseball, is kind of taking advantage of doctoral students' hopes and dreams to get the rather astounding rate of scientific progress we see today (at least by some measures). It funds public goods for everyone out of those sacrifices.
The least the US could do would be to show a little more gratitude by guaranteeing them permanent US residency after they graduate, but they don't even get that—many people are kicked out of the US, where they've spent most of their adult lives, when they wash out of the academic pipeline. And the current deplorable administration has promised to worsen this already deplorable situation.
And they often have no choice but to work in academia too, because Academic H1B are lottery exempt but not Industry H1B and they aren't transferable. Pretty messed up.
In the US, people pay for their own training, so they can damn well go wherever they please.
why not