Some US kids are avoiding programs in France due to perceived danger.
If the US is viewed as a hostile place for Muslims, people of color, lgbtq, etc. applications from those groups could decline from overseas. And us students conceptually could travel overseas for college instead of home.
I just heard that Trump is considering Michelle Rhee for Secretary of Education.
She is the face of oligarchic moves to privatize public education. And her husband, Kevin Johnson, is the subject of multiple claims of sexual abuse, include molestation of minors.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article43619241.html
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/09/26/alleged-sexual-assault-victim-kevin-johnson-speaks/
Looks like the chosen way to deal with the swamp is to fill it with crocodiles.
I would not be surprised if international students would want to stay away from the US.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some re-evaluate their desperate desire to have a US education. But let’s be real. You think kids accepted to US tippy tops, and in some cases, with remarkable financial aid, are going to shrug their shoulders, turn it down, and stay home? Especially considering the liberal nature of the tippy tops themselves?
Of course, I understand concerns. (At one point, D1 was considering academic time in an unstable city.) But, we’ll see how the volume of apps goes.
You can thank the media for your concerns. The new administration will work hard to vet incoming students and those seeking immigration to make sure they are legal and legitimate. The administration plans to enforce current laws on the books. Nothing will change for students who plan to come here legally and as someone else put it, foreign students are a huge money maker for higher education.
Nothing may change in the process for F1/J1, but 1° attitudes in Embassies can change, especially tone during the interview 2° arbitrary refusals can go up depending on new embassy personel/nominees’ views 3°most importantly, attitudes toward the US may change and affect patterns of applications from the students themselves.
I don’t think it’ll affect top colleges but parents whose driving factors were not prestige, but potential upward mobility, tolerant society, and safety, remain concerned, and have a right to be. Some small colleges branded themselves as ’ rural = safe’ and may soon - if not right now- have a branding problem. There’s a lot of uncertainty. One of the US strength is soft power and there’s no telling where we go from here.
The “pitchfork” image may have been isolated, but it was picked up abroad. If an international student is harassed or attacked, it’ll be picked up in national news. If representative international students are interviewed for their country’s TV and say they’re nervous, it’ll be picked up and shared. If they say everything’s OK, that Americans are friendly and there’s been no racist incident in their area, same thing.
Again, laws aren’t the only issue - public image, symbols, statements have a powerful effect too.
‘Aggressive vetting’ of students was used in 2008-2010 in France for French speaking Africans. This came on the heels of “The African man has not entered history” speech delivered to the Senegalese elite by the then-president of the French Republic. These upper middle class/upper class families considered their kids were treated with disdain, visas were seemingly arbitrarily withheld, they were made to feel not as an asset but as potential cheaters/terrorists/problems, so they switched to other countries that seemed transparent, respectful, and open, in particular Canada. The fall in upper middle class students from Western Africa to France was precipitous and has not come back up, leading to concerns in French-speaking diplomatic circles about sphere of influence. Right now, international students are part of a worldwide market, with Australia, Canada - and the EU-, in competition with the US to attract the growing middle/upper middle class from emerging/BRICza countries. So, fallout is unpredictable right now, even if there are immediate moves, concerns, and fears from current applicants and their parents (not those aiming for Stanford/Harvard/MIT, but for those aiming for an American education, the concept of a liberal arts or advanced technical education, in “red states” and rural areas.)
MIT put up places for students to express their feelings in Lobby7 the main entrance to campus. I walked by there last Thursday and read some of what was written, and it was gut wrenching. There is no way to read what was written and not be moved. There is widespread fear among international students about what their future may be in the US. These are among the best and brightest young people living in the People’s Republic of Cambridge. Can’t find a spafer space in the US. Each and every one of these students would be a net plus for our economy.
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/fears-and-hopes
I expect a significant drop in the number of international students who WANT to study here.
Also I don’t expect outrage over bigotry and racist incidents to recede, nor do I think it should. Frankly, I’m impressed with some of the responses already.
The two men from Babson who drove around Wellesley have been shamed on social media beyond belief. Those women even contacted their employers. They messed with the wrong women!
300 people at Baylor escorted an African woman to class who had been harassed.
Oklahoma University has expelled the student who sent racist emails to African American UPenn Freshman.
I heard word of mouth about a museum curator in Texas when faced with a contractor spewing racist nonsense, just fired him on the spot and got the backing of her board. Kudos.
I too am optimistic that our country has come too far to tolerate the kind of bigotry being displayed by the the racists who think they are now empowered.
However, the difference in how domestic policy with respect to racial/ethnic/religious minorities is perceived may have more of an effect on how willing international students (particularly those who would be seen as racial/ethnic/religious minorities) to visit and study.
However, different sectors (public versus non-profit private versus for-profit private) may be favored or disfavored differently by policy changes.
re: #29: in fact, there was a big drop between 2002-2005 or so, in part due to visa issues.
Also, anti-war protests reflect a different image issue (international policy) from “my kid’s safety is compromised” (which is what I’m hearing now).
Also, people are afraid of different things - for instance, Europeans appreciate the protests as a sign of US democracy, whereas I’m not sure Chinese parents would hold the same view (or they may not care!)
You’re right that there’s a lobbying factor - I’m sure they played a major role in changing the post 9/11 ideological policy to a pragmatist one.
In the end, it’s something to monitor. As long as fears don’t come true, I don’t think there will be a drop over the long term. The issue is for current applications - full into the fears, no proof they won’t come true, “do I take the risk and let my kid apply by the Dec 1 deadline to a school that I consider potentially unsafe due to the area it’s in”?
in a nutshell: for now fears and degraded image + competitors milking it. No idea of real impact till February.
(there’s also a hopeful person who’s like “surely a racist person makes a difference between a brown-skinned full pay student and an illegal worker” - I paraphrase.)
I’m wondering how many international students are hearing about this and thinking to themselves, “less international applicants, better odds for me!”