<p>
[quote]
I think international students are already held to much higher standards than U.S. students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This has been the consistent conclusion of scholars who have studied this issue. That's true both for undergraduate admission and for graduate admission. American colleges and universities put a big thumb on the scale in the admission process to favor domestic students.</p>
<p>"I have a question though, is anyone here against protectionism but for State schools giving preference to in state applicants?"</p>
<p>Hand raised here. State schools receive funding from their states specifically to advantage in-state residents. States have an interest in offering good schools to lessen brain-drain -- it's a wise investment.</p>
<p>While some may be difficult for out of staters to get be admitted for a few schools (UNC comes to mind) , I don't think there are any with absolutely closed doors. Also there's no inconsistency in charging higher fees to out-staters (& internationals) too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't care, but theoretically I have more of a problem with publics taking internationals than privates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me tell you, at Berkeley, which is obviously a public school, internationals probably comprise at least half of the PhD students in some of the technical disciplines (i.e. physics, engineering). Maybe one could argue that these internationals are "taking" the spots of Americans who want to get PhD's at Berkeley? {But then the counterargument is that those PhD programs don't really have a set number of admissions slots, and so if they weren't allowed to admit internationals, they would probably choose to simply not admit anybody at all, rather than replace them with less qualified Americans.}</p>
<p>
[quote]
States have an interest in offering good schools to lessen brain-drain -- it's a wise investment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's one good reason for state universities to admit lots of foreign students--to raise the quality of State U and keep more good domestic students in state. As it is, every state university appears to strongly prefer in-state students.</p>
<p>My opinion is somewhat biased as I will be applying as an international student, but I'll offer my views anyway:</p>
<p>I am currently living in Singapore, and am a permanent resident. If protectionism was really the policy of US colleges, then I should not even bother applying and continue my education at the National University of Singapore. However, US colleges just have so many more opportunities for students than NUS, especially in my intended field of study, and I would not receive the same experiences and knowledge that I would if I was in the US.</p>
<p>I think International students are a big plus to a University setting. However, I do not believe they should take financial aide dollars away from deserving American students.</p>
<p>You're on a slippery slope when you disagree with protectionism but agree with IS preference...</p>
<p>Berkeley's PHD programs are a bit different. With all due respect Sakky, the argument I have with that is that if any scenarios exist where those intel scholars are taking more than they are contributing, how are the end results of that "educating process" useful to that state system? If they cost that state anything at all how is that fair? They usually choose to leave and go to more prestigious institutions to teach rather than stay in the UC/CSU system. Just seems a bit ironic.</p>
<p>I hate that term... "deserving American students", but yes for public schools I think it's a bit strange for UG purposes and maybe even post-bac purposes -- when intels are given financial aid.</p>
<p>At least OOS students pay taxes to whichever state they live in, and that money is going somewhere even if it's not contributed to the state they attend school in, and obviously you can see where I'm going with this.</p>
<p>In a globalised economy, does it matter to make a distinction between an OOS student and an IS student?</p>
<p>I suspect that a Mexican international who will return to Baja California will end up doing more direct benefit for the state that Berkeley is in, then say, an OOS student from Vermont.</p>
<p>^^ That example is only valid if there's a consistent trend of location proportionate intels enrolling in PHD programs. There aren't. Most of the internationals are from Subcontinental/East Asian areas.</p>
<p>My simplistic view thinks it's bad enough that we pay full freight for our children's education while other students are paying a fraction of that... it would only be adding insult to injury to have international classmates paying a fraction of the tuition that we are paying. Why is it that there is so much concern for fairness to everyone but the hardworking achievers who have done everything right to "make it" in this country?</p>
<p>Because we live in a global society -- chances are, people living in East Asia are also benefitting you. Our economic self-improvement here inadvertently help people in Germany (invisible hand). Let colleges admit who the want in their own vision.</p>
<p>And why should colleges pay so much attention to nationality? That Indonesian village boy you admit with financial aid may one day end up being a major mogul who will look back on his past institutions when deciding who to donate to. </p>
<p>Political borders hamper efficiency -- they do not promote them.</p>
<p>While I agree with your answer in theory, it clearly ignores the logistical concerns of the dissenters including probably the opinion of the OP. </p>
<p>That my friend is the problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's PHD programs are a bit different. With all due respect Sakky, the argument I have with that is that if any scenarios exist where those intel scholars are taking more than they are contributing, how are the end results of that "educating process" useful to that state system? If they cost that state anything at all how is that fair? They usually choose to leave and go to more prestigious institutions to teach rather than stay in the UC/CSU system. Just seems a bit ironic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know. I think these are all good questions that you have raised. And in fact, I have myself raised them in various ways in other threads in order to spur debate regarding what exactly is the primary purpose of state schools? For example, if the primary purpose is to educate instate students, then why do schools like Berkeley run numerous elite PhD programs, the vast majority of students whom are not instate students, as the PhD programs do not provide any admissions preference for state residency? I've been in the labs of many Berkeley profs that don't have a single graduate student who is actually from California, and in fact, many of them not even being US citizens. For example, I remember one where I think virtually every grad student was from India. Not a single Californian to be found anywhere. {It should be noted that the prof himself was also from India.} </p>
<p>However, in partial defense of the system, let me say that one basic way that the state benefits from this present system is that this system allows the state to bring in willing researchers. Let's face it. Most Americans (including Californians) don't really want to become scientists or engineers, at least not at the PhD level. Yet the US continues to lead the world from a science/technology standpoint, and the only way to do that is to continually import talent. While not all of the foreigners who obtain technical PhD's will choose to stay in the US, many (probably most) will, and their presence strengthens the science base of the nation. A strikingly high percentage of America's Nobel Prize winners are naturalized American citizens (that is, they were immigrants who then underwent the citizenship process). For example, not counting Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, 5 Americans won shares of the Nobel Prizes in 2007. Yet of those 5, 3 of them (hence the majority) are actually naturalized American citizens. Leonid Hurwicz was born in Russia, Mario Capecchi was born in Italy, and Oliver Smithies was born in England. As Thomas Sowell once asked: why is it that so many native-born Americans end up winning so few Nobels when so few naturalized citizens are able to win so many? Or perhaps more relevantly, how is a school like Berkeley supposed to maintain its status as one of the world's elite research institutions if it can't actually bring in the world's best PhD students, but is instead forced to admit less qualified Californians?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hate that term... "deserving American students", but yes for public schools I think it's a bit strange for UG purposes and maybe even post-bac purposes -- when intels are given financial aid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I too hate the term 'deserving American students'. What, just because you're an American makes you automatically 'deserving'? Why? So in other words, the system should just reward winners of the 'genetic lottery'? Let's face it. Most Americans didn't really do anything to 'deserve' their status as Americans. They just had the luck to be born here as opposed to some poor country. It's not his fault that a guy gets born in Congo or Myanmar. </p>
<p>
[quote]
At least OOS students pay taxes to whichever state they live in, and that money is going somewhere even if it's not contributed to the state they attend school in, and obviously you can see where I'm going with this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me tell you this. Practically all foreign-born PhD students get significant 'aid' in the sense that almost all of them not only don't pay any tuition, they also get paid a stipend, through a fellowship or TA/RA-ship. In fact, this is a general rule for all PhD students regardless of where they come from. In fact, I know some PhD students from poor countries whose stipends represent far more money than they could ever make back in their home countries, and in fact, they remit much of their stipends back home to greatly improve the lives of their families. A few thousand dollars of remittances may not seem like much to us, but it is a *small fortune * in some countries. </p>
<p>Let me also tell you of one instance that I do find quite ridiculous. US citizens who are PhD students have to pay US taxes on their stipends. But citizens of certain foreign countries that have a special tax treaty with the US do not have to pay US taxes on their stipends from those same PhD programs. Now, to be sure, those foreigners are theoretically supposed to be paying taxes to their own government. But the fact is, the vast majority of countries do not actually charge income taxes on money that you make outside of the country. The net effect is that those foreign students * don't have to pay any taxes at all*. In other words, those foreign students actually end up with more *money (after-tax) than do the US students *in the same PhD program. </p>
<p>Here is a list of nations that have that tax treaty with the US. Hence, if you come from China and join a PhD program in the US, you will effectively be living better than will an American citizen in the same PhD program. Unbelievable, isn't it? </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that those foreign students from those countries have to pay taxes on their stipends. What I am really advocating is that US students should also not have to pay taxes on their stipends. In other words, why can't the US basically have a "tax treaty with itself" (the way that countries like China or Bangladesh have) to exempt its own PhD students from taxes? If a Chinese PhD student doesn't have to pay taxes, why should an American PhD student?</p>
<p>This is an issue that actually comes from real life. I know 2 people in the same PhD program at Harvard. One is an American who has a wife who doesn't work and also has 2 kids. The other is a girl from Portugal who is single and has no kids. They both get the same stipend. Yet it is the American guy with the family to support who nevertheless has to pay US taxes. The single Portuguese girl pays nothing at all. She doesn't pay US taxes because of the tax treaty. She doesn't pay Portuguese taxes either because Portugal doesn't care about what you do outside of the country. Yet who really needs the money, a single girl or a guy with a family? They're both friends of mine, so I'm happy that she doesn't have to pay taxes, but if she doesn't have to pay taxes, then neither should he. I happen to think this is just a screw-up of US government policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My simplistic view thinks it's bad enough that we pay full freight for our children's education while other students are paying a fraction of that... it would only be adding insult to injury to have international classmates paying a fraction of the tuition that we are paying. Why is it that there is so much concern for fairness to everyone but the hardworking achievers who have done everything right to "make it" in this country
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the counterargument to that is simple: that you would then be screwing over the hardworking people who just happened to have the bad luck of being born in poor countries. Let's face it. US college tuition is an unfathomable amount of money to most people in the world. India has 1.1 billion people, yet the per-capita income in India is less than $1000 a year. Hence, the average Indian person could never dream of attending a school like Harvard or MIT without aid no matter how hard he worked simply because he could never pay for it. {Now, obviously a rich Indian could afford it, but the vast majority of Indians are not rich.}</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think international students are typically good looking and have sexy accents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that right? Many (probably most) international students come from East or South Asia. Not once in my life have I ever encountered a woman who ever thought that an Asian accent was sexy, and in fact, most Asian immigrants that I know are desperately trying to eliminate their accent. Nor do they seem to be considered particularly good-looking. How many times have you heard girls cooing from all of the handsome and available Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, or Pakistani students? Probably never.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is that right? Many (probably most) international students come from East or South Asia. Not once in my life have I ever encountered a woman who ever thought that an Asian accent was sexy, and in fact, most Asian immigrants that I know are desperately trying to eliminate their accent. Nor do they seem to be considered particularly good-looking. How many times have you heard girls cooing from all of the handsome and available Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, or Pakistani students? Probably never.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...meanwhile he was joking</p>
<p>Sakky, Most every "American Success Story" is a story of immigrant ancestors who came to this country and worked and sacrificed and struggled to give the next generation a better life. They did not come over expecting the best education America could give them right off the bat... it was a process of working and achieving and hopefully reaching their American dream. We owe nothing to students of other countries who are not willing to go through the same process simply because they are gifted intellectually in some way. </p>
<p>And by the way, US college tuition is an unfathomable amount of money for us to pay but we have worked hard since the day my children were born to save for this and we will be skimping and sacrificing our way through the next 6+ years to pay with no financial assistance whatsoever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We owe nothing to students of other countries who are not willing to go through the same process simply because they are gifted intellectually in some way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither is anything "deserved".</p>
<p>Leave the law alone and let schools admit who they want, for goodness sake. Allocative efficiency and all that.</p>