<p>I continue to be perplexed by the interest that top US colleges and universities have in recruiting and admitting international students into their undergraduate programs. </p>
<p>I am aware that many private preparatory schools got the ball rolling years ago in an attempt, highly successfully, to increase the pool of price insentitive buyers and ventured to places like Japan and Korea. And similarly motivated Boston University, as a specific example, has feasted for years on well-to-do full-paying Middle Eastern and Asian students. So clearly money has been a motivating factor in the past. </p>
<p>Is making one self available to an ever larger pool of price insensitive buyers still the motivation? Is this also a doffing of the cap, yet again, to the idea of "diversity"? If so, aren't there myriad first-generation Americans from every conceivable place on the planet worthy of our attention that meet these diversity requirements? </p>
<p>If, we believe, that education is a scarce good, should we not be satifying the demands of American students first, and not be educating people who will return to their home countries, thus denying us the productivity that results from this education. Shouldn't we be reserving all our financial aid for economically-deserving Americans?</p>
<p>I don't mean to be jingoistic about this, but I have a few questions? Does anyone else?</p>
<p>While I do agree with your argument that a good number of universities view international students as 'cash-cow'. Admittance of internationals also serve a larger purpose.</p>
<p>Yes, it does provide the diversity that will benefit locals (I find the argument that 'first generation Americans from every conceivable place on the planet' can be considered 'diversity' as highly dubious), but more importantly, I think it is political.</p>
<p>Though you may view internationals returning to their home countries as 'denying us the productivity that results from (US) education', politically this policy is actually very 'productive'. The US is actually subtly educating thousands of professionals from all over the world in the 'American Way'. And these people, upon returning to their home country is most likely to align themselves to the US, bringing in the more tangible economic investments.</p>
<p>Educating internationals can also act as a manipulative political tool. Although the US do admit a lot of PRCs, note also the number of Taiwanese, South Koreans, Iranians and a multitude of Middle Eastern internationals. In term of average number per population, I suspect the number are highly skewed towards the internationals from these countries. Think China, North Korea and 'the axis of evil' and you'll be able to make the connection. </p>
<p>While you may lament why places at 'top' US colleges are being taken by internationals, but if you'll just switch perspectives from 'top colleges' as being a coverted prize, to one which takes into account how 'top US colleges', by virtue of their global standing, also acts to invest in political mileage around the world, then maybe you won't feel so 'short-changed'.</p>
<p>From an American (U.S) point of view, I understand completely what you say. Americans (U.S) pay taxes so financial aid should be directed towards the American (U.S) people. Why should Americans (U.S) offer monetary aid to foreigners when many Americans (U.S) need financial aid desperately? It doesn't seem right.</p>
<p>From an International point of view. At least Honduran and even Latin American:</p>
<p>It's only fair the U.S offers financial aid to Latin American students. First of all, it seems the U.S granted itself the power to mediate in Latin American affairs. Since 1823, President Monroe declared that "European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas". This was an early sign of a later U.S trend: to meddle in other nation's affairs. The Monroe Doctrine would then enlarge, with the Truman Doctrine, and the U.S became the greatest busybody in history. Not only did the U.S see this role as a responsibility, but also any country in need expected it. "We need your help" was the call directed towards the U.S every time some trouble was present.
Don't get me wrong, I won't get all Hugo Chavez on you. The truth is the U.S has affected the economy of all Latin American countries. The choice to take advantage of this situation is individual to each country. The U.S international involvement can be extremely productive (Japan, for example) or extremely destructive (Nicaragua).</p>
<p>Back to the financial aid issue: Considering that Honduras has practically no sovereignty because of our dependence in every aspect to the U.S (this is no exaggeration as must Latin Americans can tell. The U.S has violated the constitution of our governments on several occasions. Check Ramon Matta for Honduras) due to U.S involvement in our national affairs for many years, I WOULD SAY it is U.S obligation to provide help to us. After all, the U.S has military bases in Honduras, directed coups, prevented coups, denied visas to former government members, violated our constitution, etc. If the U.S is to have all these rights in our land, then we should get something back, don't you think? Financial aid for Hondurans is just a small part of this.</p>
<p>This is a Latin American point of view (specifically Honduran).
I hope you understood what I tried to say.</p>
<p>What you learn from your classmates makes up an important part of any college education. International students help to bring a myriad of different perspectives and experiences to a college community. As a result international students help to enrich the educational experience of everyone (American or another international) in the college community.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Federal and state financial aids are off limits to international students, thus your tax dollars have nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yes and no. While international students cannot file the FASFA or the like, some public universities do award academic and athletic scholarships (or "tuition waivers") to international students and those are directly or indirectly funded by tax money.</p>
<p>While recruiting international top athletes can generate a lot of immediate profits for a university, the pay-offs of academic scholarships are less obvious.</p>
<p>Could you name a few of these public universities that award academic scholarships (or tuition waivers) funded by federal or state money to foreign students?</p>
<p>Southern California, Southern Arkansas, Iowa State, New Orleans, just to name a few.</p>
<p>I don't know if the scholarships are funded <em>directly</em> by public resources, but they are not "name scholarships" that are donated specifically for that purpose by some private donor. So I would assume that they are at least indirectly funded by taxes.</p>
<p>What I mean with indirectly:
Assume the colleges officially fund the scholarships with open-purpose alumni donations. Then the alumni donations that go towards the international students do not go towards American students. Therefore, tax money has to be used to pay for some services for American students that could have been payed for by alumni donations. Thus, tax money would indirectly pay for the scholarships for international students.</p>
<p>Ireland has a completely different education system, where our final high school exams, solely determine who gets into a course. You guys are all about the institution (Harvard, etc), but if an Irish student wants to study medicine, she has the choice of about 5 colleges in Ireland and will compete to get 600 points (6 A's full marks) to get into the course. </p>
<p>An Irish student is taking the Dept of Education to court after it emerged that he had sufficient requirements to enter Medicine in a Dublin college, his place was given up to a student from another country, who didn't fulfill the requirements, and was paying the 40K a year to study in Ireland. </p>
<p>Irish education is free by the way. All you have to pay is E800 registration, which you get back at the end of the year. You only have to pay if you go to a private school, which I did, which costs roughly 6K per year and is worth it as the classes are smaller, there's less distractions, etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and not be educating people who will return to their home countries, thus denying us the productivity that results from this education.
[/quote]
Apparently you don't know that many of these students stayed after graduation to work in this country. It was not that long ago "brain drain" was an issue to countries like India and China and other countries that sent many of their talented young minds to this country for higher education.</p>
<p>GoBlue81 makes a great point. A lot of international students go on to work for American companies bringing their talents, education and productivity to the American workplace and the American economy. International sudents from developing nations will often work for lower wages than his/her American counterparts. This helps make American companies more competitive.</p>