Hypocrite or visionary?

<p>How does this fit with Dartmouth's new initiative to conduct need-blind admissions for international students?
From Valley</a> News ~ Full Story

[quote]
** Dartmouth Times Two**</p>

<p>Dartmouth College President James Wright was on Capitol Hill yesterday with other top higher education officials announcing the release of a new report from the College Board entitled “Coming to Our Senses: Education and the American Future.”</p>

<p>The report is intended to help the United States “regain its global competitive edge” and sets a goal of ensuring that at least 55 percent of Americans have a postsecondary degree by 2025, according to a Dartmouth news release.</p>

<p>Among the recommendations from the 28-member panel, Wright included, that prepared the report are universally available, but voluntary, preschool education; improved dropout-prevention programs; improved teacher quality; and steps to keep college affordable.</p>

<p>The report says the United States now ranks 21st out of 27 advanced economies in terms of high school completion rates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The college will still accept relatively few international students. They aren't "international" blind. They just won't worry about the financial need of those they accept.</p>

<p>Need blind admissions simply means that your needing financial aid (whether it it $1 or the full cost of attendance) or not needing financial aid is not a factor in determining your admission to dartmouth or any other school that practices need blind admissions.</p>

<p>Because international students are not eligible for federal state funds (PELL, SEOG, Perkins subsidized/unsubsidized stafford loans, Federal work study, etc) most international students needing FA have to be directly funded by the college. If a college has limited funds, then they can only accept and fund a few students. In a process that is not need blind, between 2 similiarly qualified candidates, the student who needs the least amount of the college's resouces is at an advantage and will get the tip from the college.</p>

<p>^ hmm... and it's not so at dartmouth, right?</p>

<p>Therefore my point is: Dartmouth is using its endowment to fund the education of international students. This is not helping to raise the graduation rates of students in the US. And too.. if we're saying that Dartmouth says we'll take 5% international (or whatever), then takes the best qualified at whatever the cost and funds them.... Well.. I still don't see how that's beneficial to the goal of improving US education statistics.</p>

<p>I am not saying it's wrong per say, but it just strikes me oddly. And so, does the new initiative that says a family making less than $75000 does not pay any tuition also apply to international students? I just cannot fathom that based on the current economic projections that these things will be economically sustainable or feasible over the long term.</p>

<p>I don't understand what you guys are worrying about. This isn't another great depression just yet, and if the college can pivot its endowment quickly (I'm assuming they'll be going heavily into cash/bonds now instead of equities) they should be able to at least maintain the endowment size or quell the drop. You're not going to see another major fall in the endowment unless the economic situation really worsens (i.e. things get so bad that investors lose faith in the US government and T-bills become worthless, in which case you'll have much bigger problems to worry about than Dartmouth).</p>

<p>And to worry about the position of international students otherwise is really silly. Dartmouth is an American university. Of course they will commit to the advancement of American education. It's what they do. Sure, that doesn't advance the interests of international students per se (although one can make a broader argument that it is in America's interest to admit more international students for the sake of soft power/attracting high-skilled immigrants). But that doesn't mean Dartmouth will completely neglect international students. If you come here expecting to be molly-coddled in an "international" setting, you might want to reconsider - this isn't an international university, it's an American university which admits internationals. And they're pretty fair about it, too - all financial aid policies which apply to Americans apply equally to internationals (although I think they've started applying a formula which adjusts for family earnings based on local currency rates or something like that).</p>

<p>stop hating on the international kids. it just looks petty and small-minded. meeting students from all over the world is an educational experience in itself, and it isn't as if there are that many of us in the first place (~100 out of over 1,100 in the class of 2011, iirc).</p>

<p>signed,
an international-student-on-paper -- admitted with considerable need when dartmouth was still need-aware -- who grew up in the united states, is an american government major, and wants to go into public service</p>

<p>i could also add that though i was awarded about half of the cost of attendance in institutional grants, dartmouth's financial aid package didn't come close to meeting my family's financial need, and i am forced borrow in excess of $60,000 over four years -- in subsidized student loans offered by the swedish government at 2-3% interest over 25 years, without which i would not be able to attend. </p>

<p>a similar program by the u.s. government or by the colleges themselves (in contrast with the ludicrous 6-9% interest over 10 years available from private lenders) would do much more to make college affordable than shutting out all but the wealthiest of international students, and would do less harm to the educational experience.</p>

<p>No one is hating. Sheesh. It began as a discussion about Pres Wright's testifying to congress about failing Americans while opening his doors wider for international students. Have we become so hyper sensitive that we cannot even have a critical analysis of the motives behind someone's behavior?</p>

<p><a href="I">quote</a>t is in America's interest to admit more international students for the sake of soft power/attracting high-skilled immigrants

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting thought. Never really considered the power angle, but the argument does have teeth, as they say.</p>

<p>cross-posted. see my second post above.</p>

<p>i said "hating on" because this is eerily reminiscent of those "undeserving internationals stealing american kids' spots" debates that come up every so often, which in turn is eerily reminiscent of garden-variety "undeserving immigrants stealing american jobs" borderline xenophobia. interestingly, those who complain the most are often also vocal opponents of affirmative action... which seems a little bit inconsistent.</p>

<p>that said, i acknowledge that i'm sensitive to these issues, and i apologize if my response was inappropriate.</p>

<p>Camel.. so what you are saying is that D doesn't really calculate "need" in an accurate way. Because it seems to me that Dartmouth's policy of "no loans" falls incredibly short when it comes to what you've suggested here by borrowing $20K a year.</p>

<p>i'm not sure what calculations dartmouth uses or how frequently this sort of "gapping" occurs, only that my parents certainly don't have $25,000 a year at their disposal!</p>

<p>I, like Camel, am an international-student-on-paper and found this post borderline offensive.
I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as abrasive, Modadunn, but you have to understand that, honestly, international students probably need this money more than a lot of kids here. I'm not saying all, just a lot. Also, generally, as an international student, one needs better qualifications, which means that the caliber of admitted internationals is above that of the American students (again, in general). This, in turn, means that the US will ultimately benefit from policies such as this one, since most international students choose to stay here after they conclude their education.
It's not hypocritical in the least for the D president to begin this policy while trying to increase the level of American education. After all, we're not trying to bring our educational standards up by pushing others down, right?
Oh, and Cameliasinensis, would it be okay if I PMed you to ask a couple of questions about our special international-on-paper-status? I'm a senior in HS this year.</p>

<p>miops.. I am sorry you found it offensive, and I don't intend to be abrasive, just straight forward. </p>

<p>I don't disagree philosophically with your premise at all, but your argument about then staying in the united states to build a career instead of returning to your country could be considered offensive to me. It's not, but it could be. Because I was under the impression that some of the generosity of American colleges and Universities to international students was to create a more global, democratic and independent world. And that international students would return to their countries of origin to build their careers there. </p>

<p>America is a land of opportunity, and it's been proven time and again that nowhere on earth is this more true. And only in the US can you genuinely make a solid argument for opening the doors as being the absolute right thing to do. While exceedingly simplistic, I can't imagine China welcoming thousands of Americans to their top universities and later, to their job market. AND be willing to help pay for it. Can you?</p>

<p>You see, there is always the other side of the coin. It would be my opinion, (and it's really only an opinion) that this world needs a global intelligence in order to create global solutions. If everyone or a very large percentage just stays here, that doesn't help that to happen.</p>

<p>But the title of this thread was... Visionary or hypocrite. It was a question and personally, I can argue either side as both have merit. When I started this thread it was intended as a diversion of sorts because President Wright is also preparing to leave Dartmouth and is undoubtedly positioning himself to move into a new or different direction. Anyone could have made the argument his goal is to move into educational policy. Would he be good, qualified, etc. </p>

<p>As for International students needing "better qualifications" to attend US schools, I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever.</p>

<p>
[quote]
While exceedingly simplistic, I can't imagine China welcoming thousands of Americans to their top universities and later, to their job market. AND be willing to help pay for it. Can you?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Neither does America. As someone mentioned, federal money doesn't pay for international financial aid. Most universities which provide financial aid for internationals do so without government aid.</p>

<p>And believe it or not, what you say is exactly what some countries like Singapore are doing. In Southeast Asia, the best and brightest are often sucked up by Singapore as early as high school, with the government offering generous scholarships, conditional on the scholars being bonded to work for the Singaporean government for a certain period of time. As I said, there's a compelling argument to be made that this sort of arrangement can be in a country's national interest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You see, there is always the other side of the coin. It would be my opinion, (and it's really only an opinion) that this world needs a global intelligence in order to create global solutions. If everyone or a very large percentage just stays here, that doesn't help that to happen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a somewhat simplistic way to see the situation. For one, it assumes everyone would stay if given the choice - a lot of internationals I know don't feel at home in America and either plan to return home after graduation or after gaining some work experience here; others may initially settle here but wind up going home (a lot of the budding entrepreneurs and academics in India and China hold American degrees and used to work in the US). And really, the present system is geared completely against this. The quota on professional immigrant work permits is so low that it is filled the day applications open, and it's a complete crapshoot as to who gets in - I know Harvard grads who joined top firms in the US but wound up having to move elsewhere because their work permit applications were rejected. The whole student visa system assumes you will not stay in America, and it can be harmful to your immigration status if you indicate that you have long-term plans to stay.</p>

<p>And really, it's never going to be feasible (nor would it be found desirable) for the US education system to suck up the top brains from around the world. Even if the demand is there, the supply really isn't - I can't see there being enough money to accomplish this, or enough educational facilities. And even if it were possible, eventually many of the immigrants would go home. (The UK, which had to deal with a glut of "Polish plumbers" a few years ago, is now finding that many of them have returned home.)</p>

<p>And on to the issue of offensiveness, I personally find it offensive that intelligent people can regard it almost (if not exactly) akin to theft for another intelligent person to immigrate to their country and make an honest living. If I pay taxes and abide by the law, what I do shouldn't be any business of yours. If you're not able to do the job I'm doing, then you should either improve your skill set or find another job, because there isn't a God-given right to hold a position you're not really qualified to have.</p>

<p>And honestly, the US elite is not even threatened by the vast majority of those seeking to immigrate for professional reasons. Many of these work permits are presently going to academics in fields Americans are generally not pursuing (e.g. theoretical physics). American industrialists in Silicon Valley is) the number one lobbyist for higher immigration quotas because it really can't find Americans who can do the jobs they need to fill. (Incidentally, this could be another reason why Microsoft and other tech firms have been outsourcing programming work to India and China.)</p>

<p>But in short, I don't think looser controls on immigration or encouraging internationals to study in America would have the drastic effects some people seem to fear they would. Yes, ultimately there would be more immigrants to America, but that is a good thing. If you're a country built on immigration, you'll want smart immigrants. And since you still seem to need immigrants, why on earth would you turn smart people away? The factors driving foreigners to study and/or settle here would also ultimately balance out with those driving them to study at and/or return home, but ultimately, everyone would benefit from a more diverse American university system. Employers and academia would have a bigger pool to draw on, the government would have more sources of tax revenue (and maybe even more brainy employees if they actively recruited and/or bonded international students to working for them), and eventually many of these foreigners would return home and bring the benefits of their liberal arts education with them. (As for those who decide to stay, I don't think it'd be prudent to count them as a net loss, since it's a sign they've decided they love America enough to make it their home.)</p>

<p>Okay, that long digression aside, cameliasinensis is an '11 so she got in before need-blind admissions and loan-free aid packages. '12s and later classes won't have loans and international applicants won't have to worry about being disadvantaged just because they applied for aid.</p>

<p>Hi All,
Yale parent lurking on the Dartmouth board to see how things are going. First, congrats to those accepted this week at D, and condolences to those making adjustments to application plans. It will be OK. You are a talented bunch.</p>

<p>I'm here to advocate for the policy of admitting so many internationals. Why? Because of the way it enriches my D's education. She's a freshman at Yale, who grew up in a pretty typical small US city, far from a coast (complete absence of racial/socio-economic diversity), and attended a pretty average public HS. </p>

<p>Her three suitemates are internationals. The things she learns from them will be more important than almost anything she learns in class. She's taking a seminar in the Asian studies department this semester. Two of her suitemates are from Asian countries. The combination of excellent teaching and the developing friendship and daily access to bright, engaged students from the places she is studying is the result of a brilliant decision by Yale (and many other universities) to bring these students together. </p>

<p>From my point of view, it isn't just about helping students from around the planet, but also providing US students with access to a representative world community. My D will be better equipped to understand, help, and compete with the rest of the world because of this educational model.</p>

<p>Both excellent points of view!!</p>

<p>miops, do feel free to pm me; i'd love to hear from someone else in a similar situation.</p>

<p>as far as "going home" is concerned, my "home" is washington, d.c. ... it's where i grew up (after moving all over europe in my childhood, i moved to d.c. at age 11) and where i want to return after college, assuming i can get a visa. it's the only place i've ever lived long enough to feel really comfortable, and even though i'm not an american citizen, i don't really have any other "home" to go to. luckily for me i'm here on a g-4, not an f-1, and so don't need to prove "nonimmigrant intent" to anyone to be allowed to stay; unfortunately, that doesn't make it any easier to get a green card... </p>

<p>that's not an argument for or against international students, just an observation that sometimes things aren't that simple.</p>

<p>Hallo. I'm not quite sure if I understand rightly what's going on but - </p>

<p>No, I do not think that even with the need-blind initiative in Dartmouth, international applicants are on equal footing with US students. What I think it means is that rich international students are on equal footing as poor international students xP After all Dartmouth is still a US institution, with the main aim of educating US students, and it does not make sense to give international students a level playing field as US students. I think that probably internationals and US students are separated into two categories, with a preset quota for internationals (around 60 this year?), and the international students compete amongst themselves. </p>

<p>That's really just a hypothesis, but I think it's pretty logical. </p>

<p>Johnleemk: Hahahaha believe me I totally understand what you mean. I just graduated from HC and there are a good deal of Asean scholars in my class. </p>

<p>In any case, I am an girl from Singapore and I just got in Dartmouth '13 via ED. I love Dartmouth, and I went all out to get this spot. I hope everyone keeps an open mind about international students... we're not aliens. And I don't see threads on other Ivys targeting internationals. D:</p>