<p>I think those who intend to work in US. You have give it a shot.
No try, no gain.Moreover, with a US university diploma, you can work in any country you want. US diploma = international diploma. Of course, the diploma only will be valuable if your school is valuable. So study hard , work hard, and the rest is in the hands of GOD.</p>
<p>
What Vicente says above is only true for small companies. The places that are hiring intls (i.e. BIG MULTI-NAT CORPS) DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT THESE PETTY 1-10K fees they will incur for hiring you. They just want the best candidate. </p>
<p>And the H1-B thing expiring, is not a big deal. You can renew it or you can get an MBA or similar degree. In either case it's not applicable to most ppl here who plan on returning home after 2-3 years.</p>
<p>And people discussing marriage as a mean for obtaining a green card, is pretty disgusting IMO.</p>
<p>
I strongly suggest you concentrate on LAC's since the above mentioned discussions are hard to find in most private and public universities with more than 5-6k students.</p>
<p>EECS@JHU</p>
<p>I think you did not understand my point.I was being sarcastic,because you can study four years in the U.S,work really hard and in the end you're better off if if you marry an American.This is to show how crazy and unfair the process is.</p>
<p>^^ exactly, that's what I was trying to get at.</p>
<p>A third option is to immigrate illegally and work at a low-paying job, which is still easier than immigrating legally through employment and possibly better if there are no jobs for your degree in your home country and your home country is poor.</p>
<p>The U.S. immigration system is broken.</p>
<p>The worst thing is that the U.S educates a lot of people and then these highly-qualified professionals go to another country.It's just counterproductive.</p>
<p>What about Canadians and Mexicans. Isn't finding a job easier for these citizens due to NAFTA. I believe these citizens can get TN visas which can be continually renewed.</p>
<p>the American governments job isn't to think about the poor intels who want to work in their country...their job is to worry about their own citizens...we intels should be thankful that so many of their unis offer us the opportunity to get a great education at such a low cost</p>
<p>Great Education!! No doubt!!!
"at such a low cost" ! ^ ^ (rolls eyes)</p>
<p>Considering that some institutions provide need blind admissions, with possible full rides for internationals, yes it is at a low cost if you are qualified. </p>
<p>You can stop rolling your eyes now.</p>
<p>^ ^ (rolls eyes at above poster)</p>
<p>tanveer149..the problem is:why does the U.S educate a lot of people and does not take advantage of this?America spend a lot of money on us and does not see the return.</p>
<p>Their priority is their own citizens,of course,but the government has to worry about the economy too.If an international student is highly-qualified,has a job offer and can contribute in many,many ways to the economic growth(even create jobs),why would the government send this person back to his/her country?Not all intels have a job offer or are this qualified though.</p>
<p>^my view is that America has a responsibility to educate anyone who's qualified, since they are they world's only superpower. I mean, they wage war against some of the POORest countries in the world(hint hint: afganistan? vietnam? iraq?). Why not AID poor int'ls, if they have the IMMENSE amount of money to wage wars against poor countries? If they have the right to "police' the world and keep "order", how come they do not "educate" the rest of the world? Sorry if my reasoning was illogical (which I suspect it is in many cases), and I know that countries work and fight almost solely for themselves.</p>
<p>There are already loads of qualified Americans that are unemployed or don't have decent jobs, so they are the priority.
@Kowloon I am all for America being held responsibile to educate qualified international students for all the global havoc they have caused...but if we hold the Americans accountable, what about the British? Don't we (especially South Asians) deserve a subsidised education from them after they stole from us for years?</p>
<p>tanveer149...if you more qualified than an american and a company wants you why doesn't the government just give you a visa? I mean you will pay taxes and will spend your money in the U.S.This regulation of international workers in the end will only jeopardize the economy.Competitiveness is the key word here.</p>
<p>Good point Kowloon!</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you more qualified than an american and a company wants you why doesn't the government just give you a visa?
[/quote]
You may be more qualified, or you may just be cheaper than an American worker. How would the American government be able to tell the difference? On the other hand, you could probably find a better-qualified foreign professional to replace every single American worker (or at least 99.9% of them). Is that a desirable scenario? Probably not.</p>
<p>I don't see long-term economic profits for recruiting a lot of foreign workers. Some foreign workers may just send some money back to their familiy in their home country so the US economy would not profit (even if all the money would again be spent in the US, it does not matter if it is spent by a foreign or a domestic worker). If the supply of highly qualified Americans is lower than the demand, more Americans might seek higher education in the long run, and there are enough work visas available to cover an acute shortage of qualified professionals (e.g. in IT) so that the economy won't suffer in the short run.</p>
<p>b@r!um..if I work legally there,a company would have to pay the same thing they already pay for a American.This would only change if the company transfers jobs overseas.Well,I think that this is company's decision.You will only replace an Americans for a intel(in U.S soil) if this intel is really worth.
We are talking about engineers an not about taxi drivers.</p>
<p>The other problem is that when they educate pepole on strategic areas le´'s math and science and these people go elsewhere in the long-run the U.S may lose competitiveness because of the trend.</p>
<p>In my humble opinion I think they should make the process easier for people with a job offer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well,I think that this is company's decision.You will only replace an Americans for a intel(in U.S soil) if this intel is really worth.
[/quote]
What makes hiring a foreigner "worth it"? You will probably agree that the foreign applicant has to be better qualified and/or cheaper. Let's consider the case where the foreign applicant appears to be better qualified:</p>
<p>I doubt that it is generally impossible to find an American employee who is well-qualified for a certain position - you just have to offer potential candidates enough benefits to lure them away from their current employers. So finding a qualified American employee is just a matter of price, and you save money by hiring foreigners even if you pay them as much as Americans that you have hired in the past. </p>
<p>Let me give you a numerical example: Say American employees of a certain profession hired in 2005 earn $60K a year. In 2006 the demand for those professionals rises and you would now have to pay $66K to attract qualified American workers. Instead you hire foreign workers and pay them $60K a year. The foreigners will earn as much as your current American employees (hired in 2005) but they would still be cheaper than additional American employees (hired in 2006). As you can see, even apparent differences in qualifications are really just differences in price. </p>
<p>(An exception - a foreign worker that is not replaceable by an American regardless of what you would be willing to pay - would be individuals with unique talents, like top athletes, famous movie stars or a few scholars. But those type of people do not compete for regular working visas anyway.)</p>
<p>And that case is just the best case scenario. The company could as well hire foreign workers for $55K and justify the salary difference by differences in work experience, education, age, responsibilities etc.</p>
<p>The bottom line is: a company wants to hire foreigners because they are cheaper than Americans.</p>
<p>"Brain drainage" does currently not appear to be a problem in the US. I do not see any negative consequences for the American economy as long as there are enough working visas available to alleviate acute shortages (considering that the number of working visas available is adjusted almost yearly, that is most likely the case).</p>
<p>I understand your point and I agree with you to some extent.</p>
<p>If a company pays a low salary to a foreigner just because he is an international worker and this person is qualified to work anywhere,why would he stay at this job?
To be hired you have to go through a series of interviews,tests,and you have to convince the potencial employer that you really deserve that spot.After that do you really think that he will receive less than his counterparts?
I'm talking about big wall street banks and other big companies though.</p>
<p>"doubt that it is generally impossible to find an American employee who is well-qualified for a certain position"
The question is not if they cannot find an American as qualified.They liked this foreigner for his unique traits and abilities.Credentials is easily find but attitude and values that match the company's specif philosophy aren't. </p>
<p>Overall I really doubt that Goldman Sachs would pay less to a intel just because he is a foreigner.</p>
<p>BTW I lost the focus.Are talking about undergrads or grads? xD</p>
<p>Even Goldman Sachs would only hire a foreigner if it would be cheaper (or at least not more expensive, and if everything else is constant the visa process will make the foreigner more expensive) than hiring an American with the same credentials (including personal fit). Or do you think there is only one individual in the world who could fill a given position at Goldman Sachs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a company pays a low salary to a foreigner just because he is an international worker and this person is qualified to work anywhere,why would he stay at this job?
[/quote]
First of all you usually do not (at least initially) know what your American coworkers earn. Secondly, there are a lot of well-educated foreigners who would love to work in the US (a large supply), but only so many working visas (little demand). If you don't work for whatever a company offers you, they will probably find another candidate who is a personal and professional match for the position too and is willing to work for the given salary (e.g. because it might still allow a higher standard of living than what he would get in his home country).</p>
<p>I think it all comes down to supply and demand. When demand increases, you can increase the price (wages) or the supply (e.g. add foreign workers or train more American workers). So the question is: would it be more beneficial for the American government to admit a lot of foreign workers (relative to the current level), create more education and training possibilities for its own citizens or just let the market regulate itself via prices?</p>
<p>You can make your pick, but as outlined in previous posts I do not think that recruiting foreigners is the best way to go.</p>