<p>“But I don’t think it makes any sense to accommodate all that want to come here. Because it’s contrary to our national interest. That’s all.”</p>
<p>Well, no ****. Since when did anyone talk about accommodating ALL who want to come? There’s nothing to argue about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Shoot Like Machine (for Dacos) - NBA Playoffs 2009](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVO6wB8R8Bg]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVO6wB8R8Bg)</p>
<p>“”…whether the American universities should accommodate the Chinese applicants is relevant. I say no, and that top American universities have no ethical or legal obligation to give away the coveted spots to foreigners, particularly if doing so would compromise the most important mission of these institutions, which is to train the future leaders of our country.“”</p>
<p>Please refer to my earlier message that apparently, admissions officials of HYPM, Caltech, Stanford, and many others highly value international students, including Chinese students. For example, quoting from one of the Stanford Challenge pamphlets, “In this day and age, Stanford cannot fulfill its mission of educating leaders unless its students gain an international perspective. And the university cannot seek solutions to complex global problems unless it can change the lives of individual students from all over the world.” <a href=“https://giving.stanford.edu/get/file/g2sdoc/InternationalScholarships.pdf[/url]”>https://giving.stanford.edu/get/file/g2sdoc/InternationalScholarships.pdf</a> </p>
<p>““The leading private universities extensively rely on support from the Federal Government, which is in turn supported by the Federal taxes. The public universities are almost completely dependent upon Federal and State support.””</p>
<p>First, some of the federal fundings aren’t support as in subsidies, but contracts awarded through competitions and as such, the universities are providing research and development in return. Second, for most top universities, private or public, less than about 20 % of revenue comes from federal fundings. Third, even if we include all federal and state fundings regardless of whether they are subsidies or contracts, for example,</p>
<p>they are less than about 40 % of UC revenue [University</a> of California Financial Reports](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/finreports/index.php?file=/07-08/pdf/factsinbrief2008.pdf]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/finreports/index.php?file=/07-08/pdf/factsinbrief2008.pdf) ;</p>
<p>they are less than about 25 % of UM revenue <a href=“http://www.finops.umich.edu/reports/2008/pdf/2008_financial_report_h.pdf[/url]”>http://www.finops.umich.edu/reports/2008/pdf/2008_financial_report_h.pdf</a> ;</p>
<p>they are less than about 20 % of UVa revenue [University</a> of Virginia Financial Report : Financial Statements](<a href=“http://www.virginia.edu/president/report02/financials/financialStatements.html]University”>http://www.virginia.edu/president/report02/financials/financialStatements.html) .</p>
<p>So one may even consider the top public universities are, in fact, semi-private entities operating mostly on private fundings.</p>
<p>““Therefore these schools have a moral obligation to serve the needs of our nation first and foremost.””</p>
<p>They already did. Most universities, private or public, enroll about 85-100 % domestic undergraduates. And the top universities certainly fulfill their missions far better than the US government, spilling out trillions at the expense of the tax payers. :-)</p>
<p>““The Chinese applicants often score highly on standardized tests… American students with less than spectacular SAT scores often do quite well in these regards.””</p>
<p>CC posters should know better that college admissions is far more than scores in standardized tests. And by the way, Indian, Singaporean, and South Korean, among other international students, excel in standardized tests as well. Why picking on Chinese students alone?</p>
<p>““Having an excessively large number of foreign students from one particular country is detrimental to campus diversity…””</p>
<p>For example, among international students at Harvard there are about 13 % Canadian, 10.5 % Chinese, 7.5 % South Korean, and 5.5 % Indian <a href=“http://www.hio.harvard.edu/abouthio/statistics/pdf/AllStudentsShort08-09New.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hio.harvard.edu/abouthio/statistics/pdf/AllStudentsShort08-09New.pdf</a> ;</p>
<p>among international students at Berkeley there are about 15.5 % South Korean, 13.5 % Chinese, 8.4 % Indian, and 7.1 % Canadian <a href=“http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/multiple_use/fall_2008_statistics.pdf[/url]”>http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/multiple_use/fall_2008_statistics.pdf</a> .</p>
<p>Typically, Canadian, Chinese, Indian, and South Korean students are the largest subgroups of international students at the top universities. International students are rather evenly distributed among different countries, since no subgroup is more than about 20 %. Nevertheless, if one were to insist on some kind of over-population, then Canadian and South Korean students are the most over- populated when adjusted to the population sizes of their home countries. And why picking on Chinese students alone?</p>
<p>““If the successes of individual Chinese students can directly or indirectly strengthen the power of the Chinese government, then perhaps that is not something that we want to actively promote.””</p>
<p>Oh boy, so you are actually trying to invoke an alternative form of McCarthyism, by assigning guilt through subjective associations and unfounded allegations. I am too lazy to type 
and I shall quote, “McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence… Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated… Those who sought to justify McCarthyism did so largely through their characterization of Communism…” [McCarthyism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism]McCarthyism”>McCarthyism - Wikipedia) .</p>
<p>““Merely that having a high score does not mean that you deserve to enter a top American university, as some of our Chinese friends seem to believe.””</p>
<p>As if no American or other international students talking about the same? These complaints are even common on CC forums. Why only picking on Chinese students alone? Aarrhh, practicing McCarthyism, which is already despicable by itself and I hope it isn’t a further cover-up for bigotry. :-)</p>
<p>““But I don’t think it makes any sense to accommodate all that want to come here. Because it’s contrary to our national interest.””</p>
<p>This is another strawman argument in the name of national interest. Who else has mentioned about accomodating <em>all</em> prospective international students other than you, yourself?</p>
<p>“”(Chinese) navy already owns a number of aircraft carriers and their ambition is to be a global military power capable of operating anywhere… Although the Chinese are laying low for now, once they start feeling more comfortable with their military power, it wont be long before they start bullying their neighbors… “”</p>
<p>The Chinese Navy doesn’t have any carriers. This is yet another piece of lie and unsubstantiated accusations conforming to the practice of McCarthyism, of course, until the above was shown to be false by another poster. :-)</p>
<p>““The U.S. military is a peacekeeper throughout the world, and of course their budget is going to be higher than anyone elses,… It would be best to keep a careful eye on the Chinese.””</p>
<p>You probably forgot that more than 10 million people around the world demonstrated against the War on Iraq. And it is the US military being carefully watched by the rest of the world. And then also by the American tax payers wary of an oversized US military budget further burdening the economy.</p>
<p>““Carriers are not defensive weapons and whether or not they currently operate them does not change the validity of my assessment. Chinese missiles can reach the western U.S.””</p>
<p>The US maintains 11 carriers and building another 2. China may have 2-4 carriers by 2020. And both have ICBMs pointing at each other. And then there is Russia… I would suggest that we all be friends instead of promoting unnecessary antagonism. Or await for mutual assured destruction before 2050. :-)</p>
<p>Thanks for all the effort you put in to collect all the information. However, none of the details you’ve collected really changes anything. Of course international students are valuable (to a degree); that’s why we admit them in the first place. But just because there are more Chinese students applying, it doesn’t mean that we should take them. Stanford does not exactly say that everyone in the world has equal rights to a Stanford education. </p>
<p>Whether 20% or 40% of the university revenue comes from public sources and whether they are sponsored research or subsidies are irrelevant. The schools cannot go on functioning without them, which is why Yale backed down on gays in the military issue when the U.S. threatened to withhold funding, for example. And I might add that the schools are certainly not subsidized by the Government of the People’s Republic of China.</p>
<p>My point about standardized testing was not that they are uniquely flawed with respect to the Chinese applicants, but rather that it is often the single greatest strength in their applications that can be assessed “objectively”. Chinese students who score perfectly on the verbal SAT can very easily turn out to be someone who can barely communicate and contribute virtually nothing to class discussions, while that is unlikely with American students. Good test scores tend to have a lower predictive value with Chinese students.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with 10% of the international students being Chinese. But I don’t think the number should be much higher than that, certainly not 20, 30%. But these figures are for undergraduates. China and India are by far the largest contingent in the graduate school population. In science and engineering fields, the Chinese are especially well represented. I just don’t think we should replicate this at the undergraduate level. According to a study by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, “in the year 2000, the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] had more students in America’s graduate schools than the U.S. military, giving the Chinese a growing understanding of America and its military.”
<a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2008/joe2008_jfcom.pdf[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2008/joe2008_jfcom.pdf</a></p>
<p>As far as the accusations of paranoia and bigotry, it might be useful to recall the telling words of the most revered Chinese leader in modern history, Deng Xiaoping, who advised China to “disguise its ambition and hide its claws”. They’ve been following his advice faithfully. Sure, let’s all be “friends”, because Americans are a friendly people, but don’t think that we didn’t notice your claws getting bigger and sharper.</p>
<p>Interesting quotes from the Joint Forces Command study:</p>
<p>(The Chinese) “calculate that eventually, their growing strength will allow them to dominate Asia and the Western Pacific”</p>
<p>(following a discussion of Chinese nationals enrolled in U.S. graduate schools) "As a potential future military competitor, China would represent a most serious threat to the United States, because the Chinese could understand America and its strengths and weaknesses far better than Americans understand the Chinese. This emphasis is not surprising, given Sun Tzu’s famous aphorism: Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.”</p>
<p>“China is investing significantly in human and physical capital. Indeed, skilled Chinese engineers, technicians, and scientists are deeply involved in scientific discovery around the world, and in building the infrastructure upon which its future prosperity and global integration might be built.”</p>
<p>You have to remember that chinese people are individuals and they do have a desire for their personal prosperity. I work with many from China (and India, Taiwan, Eastern Europe and other countries) with advanced degrees and they do enjoy the prosperity and other benefits of living in the United States. They also contribute to our national GDP.</p>
<p>You made some rather odd points about Chinese language problems making it seem that this is a widespread problem while then complaining that they garner a large proportion of Graduate seats. Do you think that we have a lot of Chinese graduate students that score high on verbal tests but can’t otherwise communicate?</p>
<p>We’re in a global economy and dealing with people that may be hard to understand is part of life today if you work in a large multinational corporation.</p>
<p>The thing about prosperity is that it works at some level to suppress duty and responsibility - it creates an entitlement culture. That is happening to the Chinese too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is certainly true that not everyone in the world has equal rights to a Stanford education. But that applies to Americans as well. Just because you’re American doesn’t give you the right to go to Stanford. </p>
<p>I could also agree with you that have an excessively large number of students from one particular country is detrimental to diversity. But shouldn’t that apply most of all to Americans? Since Stanford is the example at hand, let’s explore the example further. Something like 75% of all Stanford undergrads are Americans, and 40% of them are from the state of California, and many of them coming from the San Francisco Bay Area. Exactly how does that advance the cause of diversity? When I visited Stanford to visit my brother, I met a bunch of students who grew up in exotic and distant locales such as… Sunnyvale, Redwood City, and San Mateo. Heck, one guy, whose father is a faculty member at Stanford, has lived his entire life in Palo Alto. </p>
<p>Whatever you want to say about the Chinese international students at Stanford or any other US university, at least they’re injecting more diversity into the campus than most of the American students are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that American universities have ever signed up to a mission of training the future leaders of this country. You may argue that perhaps they should, but the point is, they have never agreed to such an arrangement. I think they are committed to training future leaders, period. That is, no matter which country they will be leading. </p>
<p>Let’s examine some analogies. I know a number of Americans who went to foreign universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, INSEAD, LBS, University of Paris, and so forth. Maybe they should not have been admitted because those schools should be training future leaders of their own citizenry, right? I know many foreigners who teach at US universities. But maybe they should all be fired because those faculty slots should go to Americans instead, right? Then again, there are many Americans who teach at foreign universities, but maybe they too should be fired because those slots should be reserved for citizens of those nations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily see the connection in the case of private universities. After all, private universities are nonprofit organizations, and therefore exist to serve whatever mission it deems worthy of pursuing, as long as it isn’t a business, and incurs no moral obligation to aid the government that provides its tax exemption. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. The Gates Foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the world and enjoys numerous Federal tax exemptions as a result. Yet I suspect that the vast majority of its activities serve to benefit foreigners, especially its extensive measures to combat disease and hunger in the Third World. Nobody seriously proposes that the Gates Foundation must spend all of its funding in helping Americans just because it enjoys an American tax exemption, right?</p>
<p>Now, let’s take it one step further. Let’s say that I set up a charity in the US that is specifically designed with one purpose: to help the victims of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. My donations all come from Americans. My charity pays no US taxes. Benefits from my charity do not flow to a single American as, by definition, they are directed only to people in China. Are you going to argue that my charity is behaving immoral? I am leveraging a US tax exemption to help Chinese people, so wouldn’t that be immoral? Similarly, when the Red Cross and other charities solicited donations specifically earmarked to help victims of the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake in Pakistan, the 2004 Asian tsunami, or the 2008 Cyclone Nargis that hit Myanmar, those charities were behaving immorally because their US tax exemptions meant that those donations should not have been directed to those victims, but should have been reserved for Americans, right? </p>
<p>Now, given that I think most people would not agree with the above, then what exactly would the difference be if I then chose to establish a charitable organization in the US specifically designed to provide education for foreign students? For example, if I was rich like Leland Stanford was, I could leave my fortune to build a private university that enjoyed tax exemptions, but that was specifically designed to teach foreign students. </p>
<p>Lest you find this to be an outrageous proposal, I would point out that that is not dissimilar to the original mission of Dartmouth College, which was founded specifically to educate Native Americans, who were largely considered to be citizens of ‘foreign nations’ at the time - Native Americans were not universally provided with US citizenship until 1924. Yet I don’t recall any incidence of Dartmouth having to forfeit its tax-exempt status simply because of its mission of educating numerous people who were considered at the time to be “non-Americans”. So if Dartmouth could enroll numerous Natives, then why is it so outrageous for Stanford or any other university to enroll numerous Chinese?</p>
<p>Does China support the US monetarily? Yes. They own huge quantities of our debt and they really can’t buy our assets with the dollar obligations that they own. They tried to buy a well-known company or two and a political firestorm erupted and they backed off. So they are going around the world with their dollars buying natural resource companies or making arrangements with leaders of resource countries to buy their mineral rights.</p>
<p>Just a note to mention that China is not too crazy about sending its top students here either. My D is spending her junior year of high school in Beijing, and any kind of SAT prep is one of the subjects blocked on the internet. SAT prep books are not available either. While many Chinese see an American education as the gateway to success, the Chinese government prefers to keep its best and brightest at home.</p>
<p>While you’ve raised some nice points, you are forgetting that an important reason why Americans can so readily accept the Gates Foundation or the Red Cross working on non-American causes is because there are many, many, many other private foundations and organizations that already cater to all kinds of American causes (some 1.1 million charities registered with the federal government). However, if there had been only a dozen charities in the U.S. and they devoted a major part of their resources to foreign causes exclusively, there would in fact be a uproar. As it turns out, only a handful of American universities are highly sought after in any real sense, with the remainder basically accepting whoever can pay the bill. At schools like Stanford, there are ten people or more vying for one spot, and the admissions officers themselves admit that every year they turn away thousands of people who would have done perfectly well at Stanford. Admissions to these select schools are limited and highly prized. Given these circumstances, I think it is very reasonable for Americans to question why a large fraction of the incoming class at these top schools should go to foreigners. Even if Stanford does not have a legal obligation to educate U.S. citizens, to argue that Stanford should not differentiate between Americans and non-Americans is pretty extreme and I do not think many would agree with you on that. Since the population of China is 4 times as large as that of the U.S., would it be acceptable to have 40% of the incoming class at Stanford be citizens of the P.R.C., another 30% Indian citiznes, 10% U.S. citizens, and 20% from the rest of the world?</p>
<p>As I said earlier, a sizable international student community, say about 5% of the class, is desirable, but 10% or more is getting rather excessive, in my humble opinion. People might have different thresholds but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think in that range we can enjoy the company of the best and brightest from the world and not hurt our own interest. The “diversity” I was referring to was within the confines of the international student population. Within that population, a single country shouldn’t dominate for the sake of maximum utilization of the limited slots. </p>
<p>The diversity within the American student population that you alluded to is a completely different issue.</p>
<p>At the graduate or faculty level, the focus is not just on education per se but also on the advancement of scholarship, and thus it is more acceptable to have significantly higher percentages of foreigners, if they are judged to be clearly better in that particular discipline. If everything else is roughly comparable, U.S. citizens should get the preference.</p>
<p>US Universities taking in foreign students has one other sorely needed benefit to the US in that it’s essentially an export and helps us with our trade balance. American voted with their pocketbooks to buy foreign goods quite some time ago. It should be no surprise that foreigners, whether individuals or governments command a lot of dollars now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I have to profoundly disagree with your rebuttal: I think the comparisons of charities and universities are highly analogous. Let’s face it. The vast bulk of NGO funding and payouts is held by only a relatively small handful of foundations, with the vast majority of them representing a long tail-end of relatively small (in terms of funding) organizations. For example, the Gates Foundation almost certainly spends more per year than the vast majority of all charitable foundations hold in total endowment. {For example, the Gates Foundation is projected to spend nearly $4 bn this year: only a tiny fraction of foundations even hold this much in total endowment.} The Gates Foundation is therefore clearly analogous to the “Harvard” of charitable foundations, and the Foundation is none-too-shy about spending the vast bulk of its efforts outside the US. </p>
<p>Similarly, many of the other largest charities do not have a mission statement to specifically spend exclusively, or even largely on US projects. The Ford Foundation spends significant sums on anti-poverty programs around the world. The Kellogg Foundation’s most famous recent program is to improve public health systems in Latin America. The Rockefeller Foundation was a key support donor of the Green Revolution that vastly improved crop yields and largely eliminated mass famine in Mexico and India. These foundations are entirely analogous to other top universities in catering to foreigners. </p>
<p>And there is no uproar. At least, I don’t see any. Nobody seems to mind that so many US dollars are being channeled to foreigners under tax-free auspices. In fact, I think we as Americans should be proud to be doing so. Let’s face it: the average American lives far better than the average person in a poor country, and that includes China. </p>
<p>Besides, you keep talking about a backlash of which source remains a complete mystery to me. Why would there ever be a “backlash” against the Gates Foundation? That’s Bill Gates’s money which he chose to freely gave away. Maybe he got that money through underhanded business practices, but the fact remains that once he had it, he chose to give it away to establish his foundation. Furthermore, nobody is forced to donate to the Gates foundation. Warren Buffett and others may have donated billions more to top up the Gates Foundation endowment, but nobody forced them to do it. If you don’t like what the Foundation is doing, you don’t have to donate to them. So why would there ever be a backlash by regular Americans against a Foundation that spends tax-free money that was freely provided? It’s not my money they’re spending, so why would I care what the Foundation does? </p>
<p>Similarly, what would be the proper justification for a backlash against Stanford or Harvard for admitting more international students under tax-free auspices? Again, just like the Gates Foundation isn’t taking any money from me, neither is Stanford or Harvard. Universities, like charities, aren’t businesses. They’re nonprofit organizations and hence aren’t required to pay (most) taxes. Americans certainly aren’t “entitled” to admission to Harvard or Stanford, just like they aren’t “entitled” to receive funding from the Gates or Rockefeller Foundation. I can’t walk up to the offices of the Gates Foundation and demand that they hand me money just because I’m an American and they don’t pay US taxes. So why should I be able to demand admission to Stanford or Harvard just because they don’t pay US taxes either? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? Grant-funding from the major foundations is also highly competitive, in fact, almost certainly more competitive than is admission to Stanford or Harvard. I believe that for every project proposal that the Gates Foundation actually chooses to fund, over 100, are turned down. That’s an “admission” rate of less than 1%. The selection of projects is also highly prized - in fact, often times literally the difference between life and death. {The main problem being that all of the charities combined, in spite of their vast financial resources, still can fund only a tiny fraction of the world’s needs.} </p>
<p>I think I’d be careful lest your comparisons become truly obscene. So some American doesn’t get into Stanford. Fine, then he just gets into some other decent university, for, as you said, there are plenty of other schools out there. But some proposed charitable project doesn’t get funded, and as a result, some people may actually die. What’s worse? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would turn the question around and ask: why exactly are Americans entitled to an advantage in admission just because they’re American? That’s similar to arguing that every US-based charity ought to spend almost all of its funding in the US. </p>
<p>As it stands now, Americans already have a tremendous in-born advantage when it comes to admission to the top universities anyway, the most foremost reason being that Americans are native speakers of English, and English is the international language of academia. Let’s face it: almost no Americans could not be admitted to Chinese universities simply because of the lack of Chinese fluency. Hence, American students are able to learn natively a language which Chinese students have to learn secondarily. What’s harder? Furthermore, the average American is obviously far wealthier than the average Chinese person and therefore has a greater ability to afford additional educational training and supplementation (although whether that American actually does so is a different story). An American student attending an American university will also experience far less culture shock and homesickness than would a student from China. </p>
<p>I think those built-in advantages are more than sufficient. To argue that Americans ought to enjoy even more of an advantage is simply taking it too far. If an American applicant loses on the basis of merit, despite all of those built-in advantages, to somebody from China, then I would have to congratulate that applicant from China. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you have to draw a line anywhere. Rather, admissions should be based on merit. If none of the Chinese applicants are any good, then you should admit none of them. But if 40% of your best applicants are from China, then your class should be 40% Chinese. Are Americans really afraid of competing on merit (even though, as I said, the definition of merit is naturally heavily skewed towards Americans)? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think these two issues are intimately linked. Diversity is diversity. If you really want diversity, then you should expand diversity in your entire student pool, not just within your international pool. What difference does it really make if 100% of the international student pool is from China, as that represents only 10% of the entire class, if 40% of that entire class still comes from California? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, why? Why should Americans get any preference beyond what they already have? I would argue that what’s fair is fair: if the Chinese applicant happens to be better, despite all of the odds stacked against him, then he should be admitted. Americans should not be entitled to special treatment just because they’re Americans.</p>
<p>If you believed in an ideal world where there are no armed aggressions, no conflicts between different societies and where every individual is judged entirely based on merit, your argument would be more convincing. But until the day arrives when national borders are abolished and everyone becomes a citizen of a free unified world, I think it is neither practical nor desirable for universities to completely renounce their national identity. Stanford does not owe you or me anything, but it does owe America its very existence and transformation into a great university. You bring up the amusing notion of walking up to the Stanford admissions office and demanding acceptance based on your American citizenship. No, of course not, you or I would not be able to do that as an individual. But if you had your wish and Stanford turned into the Beijing University Annex, with 40% of the freshman class being Chinese citizens and 10% American citizens, I think it would very appropriate to write a newspaper column or to organize a rally demanding that Stanford accept more Americans, and I strongly suspect most people would support it. Collectively, Stanford does owe us something. </p>
<p>Since you seem to attach a lot of importance to technicalities, let me mention that you are also consistently failing to acknowledge what I’ve pointed out several times already, that leading universities in the U.S. do happen to get substantial money from the Federal and State governments. For example, Harvard University (not including the Harvard hospitals) receives around half a billion dollars yearly for sponsored research, of which 80% comes from the Federal Government. MIT receives similar amounts. The indirect costs are used to maintain buildings and facilities, pay for utilities, computer support, salaries of administrative staff, departmental receptions, and all sorts of stuff. A while back the President of Stanford got into trouble because he used some of this money for an extravagant yacht trip/party, but under more normal circumstances, the money is mostly used for daily operation of the schools. Legally, the schools are working under a contract, so it’s not a subsidy, but the fact is that the schools are completely dependent on the government money. If the universities don’t owe anybody anything, as you claim, then why do Harvard and MIT fork over millions of dollars to Cambridge and Boston every year? Why do they keep on announcing all sorts of concessions and measures to “give back to the community”? These facts speak for themselves. </p>
<p>What you seem to see as fair-minded, I see as unrealistic and foolish, so I’m afraid our positions are irreconcilable.</p>
<p>““But just because there are more Chinese students applying, it doesnt mean that we should take them… But I dont think the number should be much higher than that, certainly not 20, 30%…””</p>
<p>Who else has mentioned about accepting as much prospective Chinese (or international) students as available, other than you, yourself? It is a rather simple fact that the top universities are already more selective in admitting international students than in admitting domestic students. And whatever the percentages can pass the admissions requirements, so be it.</p>
<p>““Whether 20% or 40% of the university revenue comes from public sources and whether they are sponsored research or subsidies are irrelevant. The schools cannot go on functioning without them, which is why Yale backed down on gays in the military issue when the U.S. threatened to withhold funding, for example. And I might add that the schools are certainly not subsidized by the Government of the Peoples Republic of China.””</p>
<p>Actually you have just forwarded the argument that the top universities should admit even more Chinese students. According to you, because the top universities “cannot go on functioning without” public fundings, they “have a moral obligation to serve the needs of our nation first and foremost (from your earlier message)”. Well, you probably forgot that the Chinese government recycles about two-third of its trade surpluses into US treasuries and suppresses the interest rates which have allowed the prolonged growth of the US economy. As a matter of fact, the lowered interest rates subsidize the entire US consumer base to stimulate the US economy and generate more tax revenue for the federal and the state governments. And hence, top universities receiving public fundings are indeed subsidized by the Chinese government, so they do “have a moral obligation to serve the needs of” Chinese students. Case closed, or you may want to dismantle you own house of cards? :-)</p>
<p>““Good test scores tend to have a lower predictive value with Chinese students.””</p>
<p>Only for Chinese students, but not for any other international students? Or is this again your demonstrated bias of picking on Chinese students alone? And as mentioned earlier, CC posters should know better that college admissions is far more than scores in standardized tests.</p>
<p>““As far as the accusations of paranoia and bigotry, it might be useful to recall the telling words of the most revered Chinese leader in modern history, Deng Xiaoping, who advised China to disguise its ambition and hide its claws. Theyve been following his advice faithfully.””</p>
<p>Oh boy, you are fabricating strawman arguments again. Or you should learn Chinese better. The closest quote from Deng is “restrained and recover”, as in avoiding international conflicts and improving domestic affairs. The Chinese did follow faithfully with remarkable results. But prosperity in China is no excuse for you to become paranoia with China and prejudiced with Chinese students.</p>
<p>““Sure, lets all be friends, because Americans are a friendly people, but don’t think that we didn’t notice your claws getting bigger and sharper.””</p>
<p>Relationships work both ways ----- Chinese are friendly people too, if you care to treat them as friends. We should rather be more cautious with paranoids who are eager to generate fear and hatred as well as propagate exaggerations and suspicions. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you partially understand what I was trying to say. Couple of decades ago, President Bok of Harvard gave an address to a graduation law class in which he expressed his concern that too much of our brightest talent is going into non-productive work (such as litigation). Now, we can say the same for investment banking and consulting. My other point is less obvious.</p>
<p>When you say IB and consulting recruit the very “best” from Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc, it is no doubt true from your perspective. I think it is important to remember, however, these institutions are not meritocracies. Being brilliant is not as important as being rich and smart. Going to certain high schools (private) and be engaged in the arts, sports, community service-favorite activities of the leisure class of a bygone era greatly improve the odds. In short, it is the breeding ground of an aristocracy.To increase diversity, they would pick a few lucky ones from the clamoring masses at the ivy gate. Among them would be the URMs and the truly brilliant. </p>
<p>Lets take the case of David Li to illustrate my point:</p>
<p>[TheStar.com</a> | Business | Meet the man whose big idea felled Wall Street](<a href=“Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star”>Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star)</p>
<p>Is Li brilliant? I have no doubt that he is (and from humble beginnings too). Anyone tried to learn French in a few months? We must remember, however, that he is a “quant”, and did not have executive powers to implement his theory. Now, are the ones with the power as brilliant as he is? I don’t think so. Even if they understand his math (which I doubt), they have apparently allow greed to overrule their sense of risk, even after he warned them. (Not the type of people that should be in charge, IMHO). Don’t you think people like Li should be the ones with the executive powers and not the other way around? This is the point I was making.</p>
<p>I have mentioned on CC many times of the work of Robert Hare. He said on numerous occasions that if he were unable to study the prison population for psychopathy, he would head to the local stock exchange. During this financial crisis, it is obvious to me that these folks have politicians in their collective pocket, and have successfully planted people in the highest level of government that are now engineering the greatest wealth transfer in history. If this is our “best”, then we are in more trouble than we think.</p>
<p>You guess it, Li is Chinese. :eek: LOL</p>
<p>I do have a number of things I have to finish tonight so really didn’t want to waste any more time, but I am compelled to by your collective idiocy. </p>
<p>StillGreen- “Well, you probably forgot that the Chinese government recycles about two-third of its trade surpluses into US treasuries and suppresses the interest rates which have allowed the prolonged growth of the US economy….And hence, top universities receiving public fundings are indeed subsidized by the Chinese government, so they do “have a moral obligation to serve the needs of” Chinese students.”</p>
<p>Feeling pretty cocky, huh? And where does the trade surplus come from again? Look, if we stopped buying your cheap Chinese products at Walmart, you would be dead meat. This is what I mean, do we really need to take these people and nurture them when there’s a really, really good chance that they will try to screw us eventually?</p>
<p>“Oh boy, you are fabricating strawman arguments again. Or you should learn Chinese better.”
Why don’t you do a google search for “Deng Xiaoping” and “hide claws”. There are dozens of websites quoting this phrase. Either they are all wrong or your Chinese could use some improvement. </p>
<p>Canuckguy – What’s your point about this one Chinese guy? Are you saying that because this guy is smart, the rest of you Chinese are all like him? Are you all really the same? I honestly don’t get your point. </p>
<p>Sakky – “Let’s face it: the average American lives far better than the average person in a poor country, and that includes China.”<br>
Sure, but there are also pockets of enormous wealth in China concentrated in small number of individuals. People who can afford to send their kids overseas to American schools are not poor peasants in rural areas. Often they may well be richer than the average American applicant. So your sympathies, while admirable, may be misplaced.</p>
<p>““Feeling pretty cocky, huh? And where does the trade surplus come from again? Look, if we stopped buying your cheap Chinese products at Walmart, you would be dead meat. This is what I mean, do we really need to take these people and nurture them when theres a really, really good chance that they will try to screw us eventually?””</p>
<p>First, you shot your own foot and became stucked with your own crumbling house of cards. So don’t blame me. Second, it is you who fantasize as if the US were untouchable, whereas the reality is that all the nations on earth depend on others. The US is no exception and should foster cooperation, rather than your kind of unfounded hostility toward China. This is a multi-polar world now and we should work with each other for mutual prosperity. Third, I don’t manufacture products for Walmart. You are mistaken again. Fourth, if you were to stop buying Chinese products at Walmart or elsewhere, other Americans will, because good value is attractive to consumers, especially in the current economy. And for many products, it is practically impossible for consumers to trace exactly the composition of country origins. Fifth, you may want to seek help from a psychiatrist, when your paranoia and prejudices become uncontrollable again. :-)</p>
<p>““Why dont you do a google search for Deng Xiaoping and hide claws. There are dozens of websites quoting this phrase. Either they are all wrong or your Chinese could use some improvement.””</p>
<p>The fact that you even need to rely on a google search for one simple phrase, already suggests that you don’t know what you are talking about. And are you even aware of the amount of misinformation scattered on the Internet? The original phrase that the Chinese followed in transforming their country is a four character phrase well-known to many Chinese. But apparently, you won’t be able to tell, why bother? :-)</p>
<p>“Island”??? The fact that the article quotes an admissions director as referring to China as that alone is ridiculous. Like all washington post fare, this article is pretty biased.</p>
<p>The above quote ^^ shows the inability of the reader to understand metaphorical use of the word “island,” which was used not in the geographic sense but in the sense that these schools in China are these small isolated bastions, if you will, of extremely high achievement. And when I say “bastion,” I am not talking about an architectural rampart, OK? I hope your grasp of metaphorical versus literal use of words serves you better on the SAT.</p>
<p>Arnomom,</p>
<p>Although it may be disconcerting to feel that universities are “giving away” seats in a college class to international students instead of domestic students, I think this is a narrow way of looking at it.</p>
<p>Aside from ethnic diversity, international students provide intellectual diversity of a broader range. They bring in their experiences growing up outside of the United States, and the 90% of domestic students benefit from this exposure.</p>
<p>Also, while you may find it disappointing that some exceptionally qualified students are not gaining entrance into our national universities, it is rarely true that, if it were not for that one extra international student that was admitted, then that domestic student would have gotten in.</p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>