<p>I realize that we have to have some special measures for NAFTA countries, but I have to wonder why schools that purport to meet 100% of need extend the courtesy to foreign students? In a country where there is a constant debate about the inadequacy of financial aid for lower and middle class families and the illegal immigration, should we not revisit our current definition of hospitality and worry about providing free education to citizens of foreign countries who will compete for high paying jobs in the US or fuel the competition against us from a foreign land? </p>
<p>Please note that I am NOT necessarily against the process, but still question the objectives, motives, and intelligence behind the policies of a number of schools.</p>
<p>Would you hire a person who can earn a companies earning 10 fold over another person who makes work just by being there. Since economy is truly global, it is survival of the fittest as everyone wants to hire the best and the brightest. That is the reason of change where multinational companies are looking for people from all background, race, gender and nationality. Thus, school wants to aid the best student as they will in turn perform better and will be future decision makers. Therefore, this step will make these school more desirable in selectivity ranking.</p>
<p>"Therefore, this step will make these school more desirable in selectivity ranking."</p>
<p>There is little information to support that the international cohort helps the "statistics" of schools in selectivity. Lower verbal scores, different GPA, lack of ranking are not uncommon. </p>
<p>Regardless, it is one thing to WANT great foreign students to attend our schools and quite another to PAYING for it. Would the reduction in full need student aid truly reduce the attendance of foreign students in the US or would it force them to look for support in their own country, be it from their government or families.</p>
<p>I understand where you're coming from, xiggi, as our own residents often have trouble being able to afford college even though they suppossedly get financial aid.
I imagine that part of the rationale has more to do with what the students bring to the campus than what the schools are actually doing for them. For instance, Yale reports that 9% of it's undergrads are international students and they are entitled to aid under the same condidtions as US residents. If aid were not part of the admissions package, only the very wealthy foreign students would be able to attend Yale. I would bet that only about 50% of the foreign students are entitled to aid at Yale (that's in keeping with the rest of the population) and of those, it's a combination of work, loans, etc., just like American students. So, a free ride, it's not, unless you really are a poor student. In absolute numbers, I'll bet they are a fairly small group.
Does Yale benefit from having an international contingent on campus? Absolutely. Yale considers itself a world-class university, and in order to maintain that kind of status, a certain amount of inclusiveness of the world is necessary.
Do we, as a country, benefit from having international students attending colleges in America? I really think so. I think it leads to better understanding across cultures, which we need more of, especially in the world we live in today.</p>
<p>I am asking the questions in a devil's advocate role. Assuming that our country has a finite amount of resources that can be dedicated to financial aid, I am wondering if our current allocation is sensible. </p>
<p>In this vein, here is another question/musing: </p>
<p>Should we not consider "freezing" federal aid to schools that offer need based financial aid to foreign students. Why would a school be allowed to distribute Pell and SEOG grants instead of using its own funds when they seem to be able to fund the needs of non US citizens? Does this not amount to an indirect federal subsidy of foreign students? Should private schools not be accountable for their disbursements if they use federal funds in their mix of aid?</p>
<p>Personally, I don't like the government dictating to colleges- especially private ones, what they should and should not be doing, except in the most basic contexts of human and constitutional rights. You really want the government to say, we won't give you this money to be used for needy Americans because you spend your own money over here doing what we don't think is necessary? Think about it.</p>
<p>Well, first of all, Pell grants and SEOG grants are for the students, not for the school. Theoretically, the student would get the same Pell Grant regardless of school attended.</p>
<p>Secondly, the "country" does have a finite amount of financial aid resources. Yale (or wherever) is not "the country", and can spend it as they choose. </p>
<p>The argument for internationals is the same as part of the argument for URMs, or economically needy students - they are there for the benefit of the rich, white ones. (They may and do benefit themselves, but that's a secondary concern.) The education of all students benefits as a result. I happen to think that is true, though some may differ. </p>
<p>Why would you believe that if funds didn't go to international students, they would instead go to domestic needy ones?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale considers itself a world-class university, and in order to maintain that kind of status, a certain amount of inclusiveness of the world is necessary.
[/quote]
I think there is definitely an element of status-seeking institutional behavior involved. I have also heard that there is an idea on the part of elite schools that part of their mission is to bring American-style education to other parts of the world, particularly our values of democracy, diversity and equal rights for women and minorities. These are worthy goals. Somewhat cynically, I wonder how much of it is due to particular academic departments trying to shore up their enrollment in disciplines which may not be filled with domestic students? I'm thinking of some of the science/engineering areas.</p>
<p>"Well, first of all, Pell grants and SEOG grants are for the students, not for the school. Theoretically, the student would get the same Pell Grant regardless of school attended."</p>
<p>Mini, are you so sure that Pell grants do not have limitations in the form of college qualifications? Are so sure that the government cannot impose restrictions on the disbursement of SEOG grants?</p>
<p>"Secondly, the "country" does have a finite amount of financial aid resources. Yale (or wherever) is not "the country", and can spend it as they choose."</p>
<p>As far as Yale being able to spend as they wish, this should only apply to the funds upon which they have discretionary control. </p>
<p>"Why would you believe that if funds didn't go to international students, they would instead go to domestic needy ones?" </p>
<p>If they plan to use Federal money to fund 200 Pell grants or $600,000, but the government freezes the disbursement because the school generous policy on foreign financial aid, it would force the school to replace the $600,000 with their own funds since they meet 100% of need based aid. Remember, the financial decision should come after the admission, doesn'it!</p>
<p>Because educating internationals in this country makes for good foreign policy. During the cold war it was one of the major policy initiatives of the US as it was of the USSR. The hope is that it makes for people around the world, some of whom will become leaders in their own countries, friendly to the US and western thought. It doesn't always work, but it's worth the realtively few dollars it costs.</p>
<p>I am sure (like 100% sure) that the Pell Grants follow the students, and are simply administered by the colleges (otherwise, the feds would have to have a dispersement formula by college, which would raise huge hackles). Even beauty schools can administer Pell Grants. I am pretty sure about SEOG grants. </p>
<p>As already noted (at length), the financial decision doesn't come after admission, but let's let that one lie. The Pell Grant is the first portion of total financial aid offered by the colleges to those who meet the qualifications (i.e. residency, etc.) If they don't meet the qualifications, the students don't get it. Theoretically, a school that has 10% of its students on Pells could have 35% of its students on Pells, if they admitted them. But it would cost the schools a small fortune to do so, out of their own funds. Much cheaper to take an international in need of some aid. Adds diversity. Doesn't overburden the college with the economically unwashed.</p>
<p>What if "we" developed a system where foreign students would receive all aid in the form of direct loans which could be repaid in two forms:</p>
<ol>
<li>dollar for dollar in cash</li>
<li>a set of vouchers issued by our poorest school public which would translate one year of teaching into the value of a percentage of one free year of education. </li>
</ol>
<p>Our government asks students who join the military academies to commit to a number of years of service upon graduation. Many poor students join the armed forces for the promise of cheaper education. </p>
<p>What would be so wrong to ask the brilliant foreign minds to dedicate a good chunk of their time after graduation to teach our most needy children to pay off their debts resulting of a free education? Don't we like to say that we do not have enough qualified teachers who accept hard posts because of the hard conditions and low pay.</p>
<p>Mini, while the Pell grant is portable, a school still needs to qualify under the HEA Title IV requirements. Not all schools meet the requirements and some can lose their eligibility for causes such as excessive defaults in student loans.</p>
<p>For fun, it would be interesting to know what percentage of these gosh-darned 'ferreners' are taking Math and Science degrees. I imagine the numbers could be as high as 70%?</p>
<p>My friends who teach science at top universities would NEVER give up their international students because those students arrive with superior secondary school educations which makes them better scientists right off the bat. Bottom line? Our universities NEED their talent. The best and brightest American students are not pursuing science and math degrees--as a rule--not counting marite's s and other CC kids. Why not? Not enough pay? That's another thread.</p>
<p>As for sending research scientists with thick accents to lteach ower income kiddies...hmmmmm. Not going to happen. Besides, what is it that you are implying? That these greedy ferriners don't give back? Are you certain of that?</p>
<p>Clearly, the government and the universities decided that sposoring the American education of very bright foreign students is a good investment. Looking over the history of American scientific advancements, I tend to agree.</p>
<p>"What would be so wrong to ask the brilliant foreign minds to dedicate a good chunk of their time after graduation to teach our most needy children to pay off their debts resulting of a free education?"</p>
<p>Not even considering the possible language barriers, why would you think these students are all have degrees and certification as teachers?</p>
<p>"Mini, while the Pell grant is portable, a school still needs to qualify under the HEA Title IV requirements. Not all schools meet the requirements and some can lose their eligibility for causes such as excessive defaults in student loans."</p>
<p>Occasionally happens - there is that school that was teaching vets to paint old ladies' toenails in the next town over...;)</p>
<p>xiggi - if a private college wants an international student enough to pay part of their education, is it the government's role to pressure the university to not provide aid by revoking aid for American students who qualify for it? And if so, where does this role of interferrence end? Would it then be legitimate to pressure private schools to make other policy changes they don't like, such as withholding funds when the school chooses to pay for speakers, artists, political figures to come to the college that the government doesn't approve of? After all, if Claremont can afford to have Joe Wilson (or Newt Gingrich) speak, they certainly don't need any extra money to help out needy students.
These are frills - they can do without!
I'm being facetious, but I fear government meddling in the affairs of
our private schools, and I think you see where I'm going with this.</p>
<p>The main reason to advertise a need-blind, 100% need package for internationals is to bump the number of applications and increase the prestige of the college by publishing a lower acceptance rate.</p>
<p>The number of international applicants (with little or no chance of acceptance) is a key reason for what is perceived as increasingly difficult admissions at elite colleges. International applications are highly elastic, driven by many superficial factors such as guide-book ratings and claims of being "need-blind". Notice that the percentage of internationals actually enrolled doesn't usually accompany changes in advertised policy or increased applications.</p>
<p>It is much more difficult to signficantly change the number of applications from the US, where reputations and perceptions of colleges is much more firmly entrenched.</p>
<p>"Not even considering the possible language barriers, why would you think these students are all have degrees and certification as teachers?"</p>
<p>Forgive me for being naive, but don't many of our most prestigious schools consider the same level of education to be sufficient to teach UNDERGRADUATES . After all, aren't we taking about the best and brightest students who are worthy of huge financial aid? If the certification is more important at a K-12 in an iine-city than at a university, just make it part of the curriculum or use what ever the universities use to train their FA or TA. </p>
<p>As far as the language barrier, most people are up in dismissive arms whenever the issue of unintelligible TA is raised.</p>
<p>In answer to above questions, Pell is portable (except see Mini's exception above:)), but FSEOG is at the discretion of the school and the total amount the school has received from the government.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The U.S. Department of Education guarantees that each participating school will receive enough money to pay the Federal Pell Grants of its eligible students. Theres no guarantee every eligible student will be able to receive an FSEOG; students at each school will be awarded these funds based on availability at that school.