<p>Should they? Should they save any private grant money and the admission ticket for Americans? Or will they be tempted by the full ride checks written by foreign governments who sponsor these students?</p>
<p>An open question. Your views?</p>
<p>gb,
I don’t think it’s even close—they will admit more non-US students and cash their full-paying tuition checks as soon as they possibly can. Financial aid to non-US students is notoriously bad and anyway, many of the non-Americans seeking to come to college in the USA come from well-to-do families. The fact is that many US colleges screwed with their endowments and the states are cutting back on funding to their publics and the colleges have to find some way to make up for the slack without cutting faculty or student services too much. </p>
<p>I also think that many publics will do the same with their OOS enrollments as the revenue is often 3-4x greater from OOS students. It will be interesting to see where there is pushback on this from the state’s residents.</p>
<p>That is my supposition, but I dont have any data to support it. Just a hunch from common sense. However, there are many foreign students (among the millions who want to attend college in the United States for various reasons) who are “seeking financial aid” and won’t have any home country scholarship to depend on. That means they are dependent on the largesse of the particular US school, which may be from private grant money or merit aid, as I understand they can’t file a FAFSA and get Federal or State aid. Correct?</p>
<p>And if your/my supposition is correct, what is going to be the impact on admissions for American students? Is it a hidden factor in increasing selectivity? Do all colleges include foreign students in their admission stats they report to the Department of Education? If not, should they?</p>
<p>This is a fascinating phenomenon, it seems to me. I wish the NYT or Boston Globe or Washington Post or WallStreet Journal would do an extensive research on it and then write a long article and publish it front and center. </p>
<p>fwiw, I have nothing against foreign students, per se. In fact, I think they add a lot to diversity and the overall experience for everyone, and can advance in some cases the diplomatic agenda of the federal government. But at some point it becomes problematic if they are displacing American students for “business reasons.” </p>
<p>Just wondering…</p>
<p>Since most int’ls pay full-freight, I think colleges will recruit them more than ever.</p>
<p>I’m sure the top colleges will fund the foreign students they want.</p>
<p>They want to assemble the right mix of multi-national, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, men-women, rich-poor, hero-villain, artsy-fancy, white-colored, pundit-idiot student body to maximize the learning experience for the students and the profs. </p>
<p>Reminds me of how the school districts talk about “balancing the class” in K-8.</p>
<p>ghostbuster,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to lack “common sense” and logical thinking. As we all know (common sense), all schools have very limited merit-scholarships available. Therefore (logic), even if every single one of them goes to international student, it still means the overwhelming majority of internationals pay full-tuition. ALL of my fellow schoolmates paid full while many American students got FA from our school. It should be obvious who are subsidizing whom overall. </p>
<p>It seems to me your mind focuses only on what the internationals get from the US while completely ignoring what the internationals bring. By the way, many internationals come from wealthy families. Most pay out of their parents’ pockets and only the brightest may be subsidized by their governments. International students are not refugees if that’s what you were thinking. </p>
<p>That internationals students have contributed billions of dollars to US economy has been well-documented. Here’s an NYT article on it: [Foreign</a> students? contribution to US economy up $1 bn to $14.5 bn - Economy and Politics - livemint.com](<a href=“http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/12232722/Foreign-students8217-contri.html]Foreign”>Archives Top and Latest News - mint)</p>
<p>
It doesn’t seem like you’ve been reading any of them.</p>
<p>With billions of people around the world, there are plenty of rich ones who are more than happy to pay full freight to attend a US University.</p>
<p>The sad fact is that we are all enjoying the fruits of the generosity of past donors to these fine colleges. The cost of educating a student is probably a multiple of the full tuition. The real cost is funded by the endowments over the years and the money the assets generate when invested wisely. Perhaps colleges should publish some stats on how the donations have been faring over the years.</p>
<p>If the foreign students who are wildly successful in founding companies and creating industries gave something back to their alma maters that wiil be fabulous.</p>
<p>Woah! sam Lee, them’s some nice social skills and manners there, buddy. You obviously aren’t bitter.</p>
<p>Anyway ghostbuster, that’s an awesome idea, I wish they’d do something like that to.</p>
<p>Oh! and one more comment to sam lee- your article is about what foreign students bring to the table, not the change in admittance LIKE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.</p>
<p>This notion of “full-pay” internationals is a bit overblown. At the most selective colleges and unviversities, international students are significantly more expensive than domestic students in terms of fianancial aid dollars.</p>
<p>I would be wary of making broad brush statements about simpy enrolling more full-pay internationals. That is not as easy as people think, depending on the college’s academic requirements.</p>
<p>I think at the top universities/LACs - the total expenditure per undergraduate student might be even more than what the school collects in tuition and room and board - making admissions even harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) the list of colleges spending ‘significantly’ more on aid per international appears to be pretty short. clearly, the handful of schools need blind for internationals are there. but brown isnt. and cornell only spends half as much on internationals. even stanford only spends a little more. </p>
<p>2) i doubt many of these schools spending more on financial aid for internationals are short on admissible full pay international applicants. that said, exactly none of them are short on admissible full pay domestic applicants. as such, there is relatively little incentive to enroll more full pay internationals unless the goal is to spend less on aid while maintaining the international population.</p>
<p>3) a rung or two down the list, i agree that there is a shortage of qualified full pay international applicants. but recruiting more is expensive and these schools are already getting lots of applications from qualified full pay americans. so enrolling more doesnt make much sense here, either.</p>
<p>4) outside a few schools with strong tech reputations, schools more than a rung or two down the list arent on the radar of many international applicants. i doubt recruiting efforts would be terribly effective, and as such would be quite expensive. kind of defeats the purpose at that point.</p>
<p>…in other words, i agree with your conclusion… but for somewhat different reasons.</p>
<p>Dr. G,
Looks like you are the one that doesn’t know what we are talking about.
Please read carefullly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, all those schools down the ladder are seeking ways to cost-effectively court internationals bcos they see the US high school graduation peak. USC, for example, has been actively seeking internationals.</p>
<p>interestedadd,
</p>
<p>The notion is not overblown when you consider the following from <a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/whats_great/:[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/whats_great/:</a>
6 out of 3000 colleges is a drop in a bucket. </p>
<p>On the other than, I wouldn’t so hastily concluded “At the most selective colleges and unviversities, international students are significantly more expensive than domestic students in terms of fianancial aid dollars.” I don’t know about those from other parts of the world, but the Hong Kong students that go to top privates are usually pretty well-off. The typical profile is that they come from wealthy families and went to international schools or top lcoal high schools. Some may even went to American boarding schools. Most “smart” students generally don’t get anywhere close to the kind of CR (Verbal) scores top schools here require; they can’t get that skill from regular HS curriculum alone. They usually need something special or extra: well-educated parents that have taught them English since little, private English tutors, international high schools (there are few there and they are expensive)…etc. Only the elite local high schools or international schools offer wide array of ECs that admission here values and have facilities like swimming pools, indoor gyms, or 400-m tracks. Most local high schools there are the size of US elementary schools and ECs are not emphasized at all (they can’t do much on that anyway with their lack of facilities). So the emphasis on ECs from HYP admission and the admission standard (high CR score) generally means they will get the more “sophiscated” students and by that, it often means those that are of the upper-middle class or higher even the admission is “need-blind” (and there are only 6 schools that do that anyway).</p>
<p>^^And I believe that the Singapore government pays for its students to go overseas to college. (But they only pay for three years, so kids have to accelerate.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Per Student.</p>
<p>Look up the average financial aid package per international student and compare it to the average financial aid discount per domestic student, i.e. total international aid divided by # of international students and total domestic aid divided by # of domestic students.</p>
<p>Need-blind admissions has nothing to do with it. At the top schools (and I’m talkng more than six) interntional enrollment is limited, to a large degree by international aid budgets. The average discount for an international receiving aid is often close to $40,000.</p>
<p>The numbers are in the Common Data Set filings.</p>
<p>To give you an example. Roughly half of Swarthmore’s domestic students receive aid. Roughly half of their international students receive aid.</p>
<p>The average financial aid discount for the domestic students on aid is: $31,715
The average financial aid discount for the international students on aid is: $41,551</p>
<p>Enrolling international students is, on average, **30% more expensive **than enrolling domestic students.</p>
<p>I wont even reply to Sam Lee. Anyone who has posted 6,000 times is a bit over the top. Further, his ad hominem attacks are unwarranted, unsolicited and arrogant. Good grief.</p>
<p>The average financial aid discount for the domestic students on aid is: $31,715
The average financial aid discount for the international students on aid is: $41,551</p>
<p>Enrolling international students is, on average, 30% more expensive than enrolling domestic students. = Interested Dad.</p>
<p>Precisely my point, dad, and why I asked the question to begin with.</p>
<p>interestedadd,</p>
<p>“The average financial aid discount for the international students on aid” to me means the avearge amount for those that are awarded aids. So it depends on how many did get it. Per student means little if only a few get those. That’s Swarthmore which is already way more generous to internationals than >99% of the colleges nationwide; it’s hardly representative and it’s therefore pointless to use it as example. Even at Swarthmore, FA is need-blind but the admission is not for internationals. Internationals that ask for FA are less likely to get admitted.</p>
<p>Another thing I want to point out is FA for internationals is a pretty recent thing. Schools that added this “new” fund didn’t drop their budget for American students. It fits the general objective/mission and also keep them competitive, especially against those schools that don’t give anything to internationals. In other words, international FA didn’t come at the expense of Americans. </p>
<p>ghostbuster,
People that made insentive or offensive comments about a certain group often 1) are not aware of how offensive the comments are and 2) don’t belong to that group. You comment about “saving grant money” in your OP just fits that description. As a former international who paid full-tuition and know many international friends that do just that, it’s offensive and arrogant for you to suggest we are mostly subsidized or at the financial mercy of your government/people. Not to mention your post reminds of some xenophobe that posted on CC a while back. It’s just so similar. I apologize if there’s mistaken identity. But I hope you understand where I came from.</p>