<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, no. I think I am being confused with other posters again. LOL</p>
<p>No offense, but you are probably a little “punch-drunk” from all that attention. My point to Lurker is that we are living in a plutocracy that pretends to be a democracy, and that to compete successfully against the rest of the world, we need to become more of a meritocracy.</p>
<p>The fact that the financial crisis is being blame on a Chinese is, well, too delicious for me to resist.</p>
<p>““The fact that the financial crisis is being blame on a Chinese is, well, too delicious for me to resist.””</p>
<p>Bad boy, bad boy, slap, slap 
By the way, enjoy your messages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, it is not ‘my wish’ for Stanford’s freshmen class to be necessarily 40% Chinese, but rather consist of those students of the highest merit, and if that just so happens to be 0%, 40% Chinese, or even 100% Chinese, then so be it. If American applicants can’t compete on a playing field that is already heavily tilted towards them as I had mentioned before - with by far the greatest advantage being that they grow up speaking English as a native language whereas the Chinese do not - then, frankly, I have no sympathy for them. Again, why should Stanford or any other school admit less qualified students just because they’re Americans? Why do Americans deserve special treatment? If Americans aren’t good enough to compete against international competition, then they need to study harder. </p>
<p>Your argument seems akin to the controversy that surrounds affirmative action and racial preferences, the major difference being that those preferences are designed to remedy social inequities by providing a boost to those groups of people who may suffer from being underprivileged. Obviously there are numerous problems with the way that AA is applied (i.e. wealthy blacks nevertheless being preferred), but that is the rationale for AA. Can anybody honestly argue that Americans are underprivileged, relative to foreigners. If anything, Americans are the most privileged people in the world. The US is by far the most powerful nation in the world, whether economically or militarily. The average person in the US lives far far better than does the average person in China, which for all its recent development is still a poor country. I think that American candidates therefore enjoy sufficient built-in advantages as is. To argue that Americans should enjoy still more admissions advantages is to basically say that Americans are too dumb and lazy to win, despite all of their advantages, and to that, I have no sympathy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I disagree. Stanford owes us nothing, just like the Gates Foundation owes us nothing. If the Gates Foundation decides it wants to spend all its money fighting infectious disease and hunger in the Third World, I highly doubt that many Americans would rally to demand that the Gates Foundation should drop those programs and instead be funding projects in the US. </p>
<p>And even if that were to happen, so what? The Gates Foundation uses its own money to fund whatever charitable projects it deems most worthy. It isn’t asking you, me, or any other American for funding. If you don’t agree with what the G.F. is doing, you don’t have to donate to it. All it is asking for is the same tax exemption that every other nonprofit organization receives. It is not taking money from you, for it is a self-funded charity. And you certainly don’t have the right to tell the G.F. which projects it should fund, no matter what protests you may try to ignite or newspaper columns you may write. Similarly, if you don’t like what Stanford is doing, you don’t have to donate to it. Stanford is only requesting the same tax exemption that other universities receive. You don’t have the right to tell Stanford who they should or should not admit. {As an example, while the state of California banned racial preferences for public schools, Stanford still practices those preferences vigorously, despite the reams of op-eds from conservative publications calling upon Stanford to change.}</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, so? You said it yourself - that funding is for sponsored research contracts, which are awarded based on grant applications on what is ostensibly a purely merit-based process. Those particular faculty members that propose the most important and most interesting scientific research projects. They are not awarded to who happens to enroll more Americans. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure that if I deeply investigated every single project funded by the Gates Foundation, I would find some evidence of corruption. The fact that graft and corruption occurs is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. After all, even if Stanford admitted a class of 100% Americans, that would hardly stop the misuse of grant money. Theft of research funding will occur no matter what your admissions policies are. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, that’s simple, and has nothing to do with admissions policies. Those universities have always had contentious relationships with the cities of Cambridge and Boston, namely in their attempts to expand. So they attempt to foster stronger relations by funding relatively cheap projects in the cities</p>
<p>But notice what Harvard and MIT aren’t doing: admitting less qualified applicants from Boston and Cambridge. Heck, if anything, they are probably biased against admitting local applicants, under the - you guessed it - rubric of geographic diversity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I would argue that meritocratic admissions free of national preferences actually serves to enhance long-term national security, not weaken it. After all, it’s not as if the best Chinese students are just going to disappear. They’ll be going to college somewhere. Would you rather them stay home and go to college in China, or to a completely different country’s school, such as Ox-bridge? From a national security standpoint, I would argue that it’s better that they come here to the US. By doing so, they can establish ties with other Americans, and make them more likely to build positive relations with the US in the future. Better that than blocking them from the country and allowing xenophobia and misunderstanding to build. Furthermore, and most importantly, after studying at Stanford or some other US school, many of those Chinese students would surely want to stay. What better way to foster national security than by spiriting away the best minds away from China? I believe that would rather have the most qualified Chinese students staying here and strengthening this nation’s economy rather than back in China, building theirs. </p>
<p>And of course the most salutary effect of openly meritocratic competition would be that it would encourage Americans to raise their game. Let’s face it. American kids don’t really study that hard, compared to kids in the rest of the world. The US school calendar has fewer instructional days of the year and fewer hours of the day than do calendars in other countries, nor do they engage in the extensive after-school study prepwork and coaching that is prevalent in other countries (especially in Asia). Most American kids are, frankly, more interested in sports, partying, pop culture, and dating than they are in their studies. To paraphrase Tom Friedman: In China, Bill Gates is Britney Spears, whereas in the US, Britney Spears is Britney Spears, and that’s the problem. </p>
<p>Arguably the most pernicious effect of race-based affirmative action is that it has been shown to reduce competitiveness and effort of those who it is ostensibly designed to benefit. Talented URM’s who could have gotten top marks in high school internalize the fact that doing so is unnecessary, for their URM status means they’ll be admitted to top schools even if their academic record is not as strong as others. Similarly, economists have demonstrated that government subsidies and shields of certain industries from competition tends to foster inefficiency within those industries. International competition compels you to become stronger. </p>
<p>Hence, if the Chinese begin to take more admissions spots at Stanford, then those Americans who want to go to Stanford will soon realize that they will have to work harder and learn more, and that will be nothing but salutary for the nation’s long term security.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, and there are also pockets of ridiculous wealth in the United States. Let’s be honest: the average American student at Stanford is hardly representative of the average American college student or even the average American applicant to Stanford. The Stanford undergraduate body has arguably the richest collection of Americans of that age group of any organization in the country, a fact demonstrated by the myriad luxury cars parked outside the dorms. For example, the Stanford guy from San Mateo who I met in my brief time visiting my brother just so happens to be the scion of the family of centi-millionaires. {I think that guy was wearing a wristwatch that cost more than an entire term’s tuition at Stanford.} </p>
<p>So the Stanford admissions process is basically comparing rich American kids against rich Chinese kids. I would call that a wash. The fact remains that the US is by far the richest nation in the world and certainly has a far higher proportion of rich people than does China. In other words, the system is naturally tilted heavily in favor of Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come, now ske293, a bit much on the jingo-ism? Look, I love the United States. But I see little point in engaging in China-bashing. Let me take on each of your points in turn:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, that’s a rather bizarre accusation coming from the US. After all, which country really spends truly astronomical of military funding? In 2008, military expenditures by the United States alone were roughly equal to that of the entire rest of the world combined. And that doesn’t even count the stock of already-amortized and therefore ‘expense-free’ slew of military assets such as international military bases and equipment that the US military possesses. Let’s face it: the US is positioned to inflict far graver damage on China through military action than China is positioned to inflict on the US. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I don’t know, I would argue that the US tends to make its neighbors rather nervous as well. Consider Operation PBFortune that overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz and ignited the 4-decade Guatemalan Civil War in which over 150k people died. Or how about US support for a constellation of right-wing dictatorships throughout Latin America? </p>
<p>Hey, don’t get me wrong, I understand. That was the Cold War and the US was committed to staunching the spread of Communism. But certainly you can understand the resentment of people in those countries for squashing their demands for reform and freedom. Heck, even to this day, the US engages in the rather distasteful (although arguably necessary) practice of providing military funding to Latin American nations who are willing to fight the US’s “War on Drugs”, when in fact the true source of the problem is right here in this country with the demand for drugs. Imagine the reverse: how would Americans feel if other nations lectured the United States on - and provided military equipment and training to US soldiers to stamp out - the production and sale of tobacco in North Carolina? Yet, frankly, more people in the world probably die from tobacco than from illegal drugs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! I would argue that the US too harasses plenty of unarmed vessels around the world. For example, the US will actively interdict and commandeer vessels suspected of transporting marijuana. But, as explained above, it is perfectly fine for American firms to export cigarettes around the world, and in fact cigarettes are one of the US’s leading export goods. That’s basically exporting death. Certainly far far more people around the world die from tobacco than from marijuana. </p>
<p>But the tobacco industry apparently has sufficient political clout in to remain legal despite its well-known status as purveyors of a deadly product. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh? And the US doesn’t have secret bases of its own? </p>
<p>[Google</a> Earth reveals secret history of US base in Pakistan - Times Online](<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the obvious tautological answer to that would be China itself. Lest that seem to be a nonsensical point, I would remind you that China has 1.3 billion people, which is a whopping 20% of the world’s population. The US, by contrast, represents only 4.5% of the world’s population.</p>
<p>And besides, I reject your statement as a false choice. You don’t have to choose between one superpower vs. another. Nations can enjoy harmonious relations with each other. Look at the European Union today - a region of the world that has historically been riven with conflict but is becoming ever-more linked politically and economically. Who would have ever thought that Germany and France - blood rivals for centuries - would serve as the dual backbones of continental integration? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A poll conducted by Eurobarometer in 2003 showed that Europeans, who are ostensibly far more culturally sympathetic to the US than to China, actually rated the US as a greater threat to world peace than is China.</p>
<p>[Israel</a> and US as greatest threats to world peace](<a href=“Best Usenet Service Providers 2024-Newsgroup Reviews- Usenet.com”>Best Usenet Service Providers 2024-Newsgroup Reviews- Usenet.com)</p>
<p>Now, granted, much of that was surely a backlash to the diplomatic runup and resulting frayed relations of the War in Iraq. However, it is also a simple reflection of the fact that the US can and will project military power to any part of the globe as it sees fit. China cannot do that. Hence, people around the world fear China less than they fear the US. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the greatest fundamental difference between the two is that the United States government stands for freedom and equality, i.e. “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Furthermore, the United States has a laudable history of providing opportunities to immigrants to succeed. That is precisely why I think that having Stanford admitting meritocratically qualified foreign students is not a problem. To do so is only fair: after all, they are receiving opportunities to enter the US just like you (or your ancestors) received opportunities to enter the US. </p>
<p>Again, nobody is proposing to give away university spots to foreigners. If the foreigners are less meritocratically qualified than the American applicants, then the foreigners should not be admitted. But if they are better than the Americans, then they should get the spot. That’s how competition works. Similarly, if the Toyota makes better cars than GM does, then GM ought to lose market share, and deservedly so. The proper response by GM would be to make better cars. Not whine that they “deserve” to win in the US marketplace just because they’re an American company. </p>
<p>Look, ske293. None of this should be construed to mean that I support the government of China, which I find to be dreadful. But that does not mean that we should not import qualified Chinese students. If anything, the opposite is true. The provision of worldwide opportunities as a matter of free & meritocratic competition is precisely why the US is better than China. Furthermore, as I explained in a previous post, such foreign admits actually serve to strengthen US national security, not weaken it. Like I said, many foreign students want to stay in the US after their studies are concluded, and what better way to remain the world’s superpower than by snatching away the best minds from other countries? </p>
<p>I’ll put it to you this way. Isn’t it wonderful that we live in a country where the most talented people from around the world are trying to enter, as opposed to being in a country where the most talented people are always trying to leave? The proper way to exploit that advantage is to then let those highly talented people come and participate in strengthening the country still further.</p>
<p>Thanks Momtoanundecided, my 700+ CR scores and I salute your attention to detail. </p>
<p>Now that I’ve been caught trying to restrain myself and pick at inconsequential details of the article, I might as well just come out and express my fiery anger that this trend is actual being so heavily debated here. </p>
<p>Why can’t people overcome their nativist fears??? Besides, an in depth analysis of a country should not be expected to be an accurate reflection of the high school students it produces–of course correlations do exist, but there is an extent to which generalizations can be drawn. The sooner Americans realize that they (oops, I am forgetting to include myself) really are just 5% of the world’s population and 20% of the world population is Chinese (there I am again) the better things will be for everyone. Besides, it’s not as if anyone here would honestly make such a big deal about an article if it wrote of how a growing number of European students were going to College stateside.</p>
<p>There is no “nativist fear” implied in rational calculations of national interest. It may or may not be a good idea for the US to increase student enrollment or immigration from various countries, especially China which is shaping up to be a major rival and in some ways an adversary. Note that China does not accept immigrants, despite its economic growth and success in reducing population growth, and maintains a level of heavily propagandized ethnocentric nationalism long out of fashion in the Western democracies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What national influence each country in the world ought to have is not measured just by counting people. What freedoms the common people in each country enjoy, and how each country interacts with others in solving transnational problems, also matters. In general, international student exchanges are helpful in building understanding of such issues. For a long time, student exchanges between China and the United States have been unbalanced in one very important way: whichever way the students flowed, MONEY flowed to China, either brought over by American students studying there, or sent over by United States government programs or Chinese-American families to sponsor Chinese students to study here. The submitted article linked to in the opening post of this thread writes about a relatively new phenomenon: Chinese students coming to the United States with money from families in China. That rarely happened previously. Perhaps bringing over a new subset of Chinese students will change the outcomes of China to United States foreign student flows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mutual understanding is priceless. The exchange of students builds the bridge. When China took back Hong Kong in 1997, What on the British mind was how they built Hong Kong, while what on the Chinese mind was how they lost Hong Kong.</p>
<p>"Note that China does not accept immigrants, despite its economic growth and success in reducing population growth, and maintains a level of heavily propagandized ethnocentric nationalism long out of fashion in the Western democracies. "</p>
<p>^ China has never accepted immigrants (unless you count refugees such as Jews in Shanghai during the holocaust) and is not expected to do so, whereas the U.S. has its history steeped in immigrant culture, and proclaims itself as the land of the free and a nation in which all (read: most) can find a home. Expecting China to conform to practices of Western democracies is U.S.-centric and quite frankly, disrespectful. </p>
<p>However I do agree with some of your conjectures/ observations, and think that this is definitely a trend worth paying attention to. Perhaps commonly held misconceptions of China such as some posted on this thread will be gradually dispelled because of the increased flow of student traffic from China.</p>
<p>siserune:
“There is no “nativist fear” implied in rational calculations of national interest. It may or may not be a good idea for the US to increase student enrollment or immigration from various countries, especially China which is shaping up to be a major rival and in some ways an adversary. Note that China does not accept immigrants, despite its economic growth and success in reducing population growth, and maintains a level of heavily propagandized ethnocentric nationalism long out of fashion in the Western democracies.”</p>
<p>I think its you that is ethnocentric when you imply that the Chinese should conform to Western philosophy and reject what has been “long out of fashion in the Western democracies.” It’s the same disaster that happened in Vietnam and what’s happening in the Middle East right now. Trying to impose Western philosophy on people that are inherently different with thousands of years of their own culture shows a strong ignorance of the world as a whole.</p>
<p>Furthermore, what if the Chinese are growing in power? As a nation do we have to stop anyone from getting power and hoard it all to ourselves? The generations since the baby boon have all seen America as the Superpower in the world and to have a sense of entitlement when it comes to foreign relations results in dangerous conflicts which are quite evident today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your use of “inherently” there sounds racist to me, and dishonors the memory of the democracy movement protesters of 1989.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I discussed what China does do, not what it “should” do. China’s government sponsored, controlled and propagandized ethnocentric nationalism is simply an outlier among economically and politically developed nations be they in the East, West or anywhere else on earth. </p>
<p>As for imposing Western standards, you have it backwards: the West should not be expected to operate by different standards than China itself when dealing with Chinese students and immigrants. If China does not accept immigrants, and cultivates ethnocentric attitudes in relation to foreign populations, why should Chinese be offended when Westerners contemplate limiting or *reducing<a href=“not%20eliminating”>/i</a> immigration from China?</p>
<p>“As for imposing Western standards, you have it backwards: the West should not be expected to operate by different standards than China itself when dealing with Chinese students and immigrants. If China does not accept immigrants, and cultivates ethnocentric attitudes in relation to foreign populations, why should Chinese be offended when Westerners contemplate limiting or reducing (not eliminating) immigration from China?”</p>
<p>There would obviously be no problem with this except that you would be conducting your activities different for a separate race of people. Last time I checked, that’s called discrimination; at least the Chinese are consistent. This only leads to more problems than simply college admissions-this discrimination is clearly not a good way to conduct foreign affairs.</p>
<p>A restriction of Chinese immigration along those lines would fall on Chinese nationals, not the “separate race of [Chinese] people”, whatever that is. The Chinese population includes many racial groups. There is nothing discriminatory about a policy of reciprocity, which is practiced in all sorts of international contexts, such as trade. A nation that blocks imports is likely to have its exports rejected, and there is nothing discriminatory about such a rejection even if there is only one nation on earth that forbids imports.</p>
<p>This “policy of reciprocity” is empirically disproven since there are international students, including students from the US, studying in China. So you really have no point in your argument since Chinese universities admit American students.</p>
<p>You appear to agree that there would be nothing “discriminatory” about a reciprocity policy that blocked Chinese immigrants but not necessarily temporary Chinese students. Or limited the Chinese grad student numbers in the US to three times the number of US grad students pursuing degrees in China? Or the same with US government funding for the studies of Chinese nationals in the USA?</p>
<p>As tokenadult indicated, historically there has been something conspicuously un-reciprocal about the US-Chinese student exchanges, that only now might be starting to become ever so slightly more balanced. Certainly there haven’t been many US students studying nuclear physics in China. While I don’t advocate curtailing the US-China student exchanges, I also don’t think it’s xenophobic (or sinophobic) to examine both the student visas and (much more importantly) immigration in general with an eye toward US national interests, whatever those may be.</p>
<p>Again, if you are going to invite less Chinese immigrants and students into America, the US will be opening up a can of worms. Imagine Obama declaring this in a press conference, undoubtedly it would lead to a foreign affairs disaster that will be much worse than giving a few kids in China some Visas. The risk clearly outweighs the reward.</p>
<p>For the time being, US (and its universities’) economic desperation will maintain the Open Door Policy. In the longer term, it is very debatable whether immigration is an overall cost or benefit. Of course it is Mexican immigration that will drive the debate, but even the influx of foreign PhD students is up for reconsideration. For instance, the prospect of turning California into a Philippines might not appeal to all parties concerned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admission to grad school is a totally different animal, which is administered by the department/faculty. I don’t know any faculty in science/engineering who would not prefer a qualified U.S. grad student to a foreign one. Foreign grad students don’t qualify for many predoctoral fellowships (NSF, NIH, DOD, DOE, etc) available for U.S. students. And in state schools, foreign students have to pay out of state tuition every year (which usually comes out of advising faculty member’s research grants), whereas U.S. grad students usually becomes in state after one year. The overall cost of a foreign grad student to a faculty member is often twice that of a domestic one.</p>
<p>The huge number of foreign grad students (not only from China, India, but also from Russia, eastern Europe, and South America) in science and engineering in our research universities (from MIT to Mississippi state) is not due to the lack of efforts to recruit domestic students by the universities or our government. And many of these foreign grad students are truly the best and brightest among their peers, one only needs to flip through the table of content of any scientific journal or take a glance of the list of faculty at the science/engineering departments of our elite universities to see how many foreign sounding names there are.</p>
<p>For these students, the best and brightest in their own country, their home countries have spent billions upon billions of yuan/rupee/ruble to educate from K through college, many will eventually choose to stay in U.S., which is a sad loss for China, India, Russia, etc. and a huge net gain for the U.S…</p>