<p>Also many more ppl learn English than learn French, German, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, or Spanish these days. </p>
<p>Due to capitalism, it's easier to get a job and get established in America if one is willing to work hard.</p>
<p>or learn Chinese, since China's predicted to be the next superpower in 25 years, as agreed by a number of political and and economics analysts.</p>
<p>but English is Indo-European language, and is therefore closely related to other major world languages such as Spanish French, German, Portuguese, Italian, Farsi, Russian, and Hindi, and therefore easier for speakers of those languages to learn. Chinese on the other hand isn't really related to anything else. </p>
<p>China already is an economic superpower, but I don't think it'll ever become a popular destination for international students, at least not for those from outside of East Asia. How many of you are willing to breathe the world's most polluted air for four years?</p>
<p>You could, for instance, attend college in America, learn Chinese and study Chinese culture, and do a semester abroad in China. Also, very few ppl seek to immigrate to China, while many students who study in America do so with the intention of getting a job and working there after college, with the intention of moving there permanently. China doesn't accept or need many immigrants because of its huge population.</p>
<p>Why would anyone living and studying in America want to work anywhere else? It's everybody's dream (or at least people over here) to live and work in the USA.
Emglish is mush more widely spoken than Chinese, so most people would want to work in a country that uses the most widely spoken language in the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
or learn Chinese, since China's predicted to be the next superpower in 25 years, as agreed by a number of political and and economics analysts.
[/quote]
Economic analysis are often wrong, the same analysts predicted growth of Japan and then Germany as the next superpower. Chinese growth is driven by the government and not by the people; as opposed to other parts of the world where growth is driven by Entrepreneurs. It's in some sense still a Socialist system; In no way can a Socialistic system succeed.</p>
<p>I've lived in both Europe and USA and at least for me Europe is the best place to visit but in the other hand USA is the best place to live.Plus i don't like the way european universities works(you are only allowed to take few elective classes different from your majorif any) i prefer the freedom that us universities offers you( academically speaking).
As far as prestige i think a degree from a decent US or EU university will give you plenty job oportunities.I don't see a lot of difference from lets' say a UCLA diploma to a sorbonne diploma and i'm sure that certain individuals (professor , job recruiters ..) would think the same ,and that's what matters not what you neighbor or your classmate think.I'm just saying this because i'seen a lot of people choosing university based on ramdon and doubtful opinion.</p>
<p>Umm, I'm not sure if China's stilll a "socialist system" if you actually GO there and just take a look down the street. It's the most CAPTALIST society that I know of:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>no labor protection. Unions outlawed just like the industrial revolution.</p></li>
<li><p>pension plans/ free education/ gov't funded medicare- virtually non-existent nowadays in this "socialist country"</p></li>
<li><p>"not the next superpower?" I don't think so- China's the only nation in the world that's able to maintain a double-digit economic growth for a consecutive 26 years. The chinese gov't's tried to implement numerous measures to control the heated economy, but realized that their control has become limited in this market economy. </p></li>
<li><p>True, China's economy is controlled to a certain extent by government incentives and regulations. But don't many other nations undergo this stage sometime in history too? Look at the New Deal during the FDR era in 1930s America... now that's what you'd call real control over economy and society: relief agencies, pension plans, sky-rocketing tariffs, dozens of new regulatory departments set up to control economic practices...</p></li>
<li><p>"In no way can a socialist system succeed." Watch where you are going kiddo, sounds like Reagan's "new right" slogan often heard during the Cold War. By the way, I am Canadian citizen, and just want to refute that point about "the failure of socialism." Now, Canada is virtually a reincarnation of the socialist system. We have: Fully government sponsored medical plans for ALL (everything's free accept for drug prescriptions), very well-funded Pension plans, HIGHLY subsidized higher education (university tuition under $5000 a year for residents, plus very good government scholarships if have a good average), all hospitals, postal offices, communication/power networks nationalized, powerful labor unions that can strike on and on for months, and every citizen receives some kind of "free money" from the government every month (I get 200 bucks every month for just being a youth under 18). Now that's called real life socialism, and undoubtedly a successful one, given that Canada's managed to stay on this route since 1867. The only thing that differs us from Karl Marx's democratic socialist society is that we have a market economy (controlled by dozens of regulatory government policies) with private ownership. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Abhishiv, sounds liek you are from India right? (correct me if im wrong). Well, India, although proud of her ultra-free enonomic practices for now, will eventually have to pursue a more socialist agenda if she still wants the support of her 1 billion+ citizens. Exploitations of workers and corporate control of enonomy and politics will have to come to a halt through the implemention of socialist schemes like far-reaching government controls, subsidies to farmers, pension and medical plans for workers, and etc. </p>
<p>Sorry for the long post (plus being totally off topic...I'm such a nutjob political maniac!). By the way, I'm a Centre-right Conservative, in case you want to know, and I've worked for years for the conservative party of canada. Post your comments. Now back to college admissions...:)</p>
<p>it is not easy to write anything after this post of jimmy :P ...</p>
<p>it may sound strange, but concerning finances, US may be the better place for some people, like me, whose income is too low. What I mean is that if I apply to Edinburgh, I will have to pay around 3000, and if I apply to a need-blind US uni, (and I am admitted), I will have to pay only the ticket to ride. So for lots of people from Eastern Europe, EU colleges are actually more expensive than US ones.</p>
<p>I don't think so. The only people the US is cheaper for are the ones with strong enough profiles to get admitted to a need-blind-for-internationals school and get a full ride. It just so happens that the few schools that are need-blind for internationals are as far as I know the absolute hardest to get into. So for an estimated 99.9% of Eastern Europeans (or internationals from anywhere) it's a pretty tall order.</p>
<p>Sorry jimmy for the late replay, i had typed a reply earlier but that got deleted.
[quote]
Now, Canada is virtually a reincarnation of the socialist system. We have: Fully government sponsored medical plans for ALL (everything's free accept for drug prescriptions), very well-funded Pension plans, HIGHLY subsidized higher education (university tuition under $5000 a year for residents, plus very good government scholarships if have a good average), all hospitals, postal offices, communication/power networks nationalized, powerful labor unions that can strike on and on for months, and every citizen receives some kind of "free money" from the government every month (I get 200 bucks every month for just being a youth under 18). Now that's called real life socialism, and undoubtedly a successful one, given that Canada's
managed to stay on this route since 1867.** The only thing that differs us from Karl Marx's democratic socialist society is that we have a market conomy (controlled by dozens of regulatory government policies) with private ownership.**
[/quote]
That's the main difference between a Socialistic sate and a Capitalistic state.
China has been far bolder with external reforms but imposed substantial constrains on indigenous enterprises. In fact it was only 4 years ago when domestic companies were granted the same rights as foreign businesses(foreign businesses enjoyed these right from 80s). The reason of this bias was to keep private domestic businesses from challenging China's SOEs(state-owned Enterprises). Now that's what i call real Socialism.
Giving Aids/Subsides is(are) a sign of Welfare state not necessarily a Socialist state.
[quote]
I don't think so- China's the only nation in the world that's able to maintain a double-digit economic growth for a consecutive 26 years. The Chinese gov't's tried to implement numerous measures to control the heated economy, but realized that their control has become limited in this market economy.
[/quote]
As in Admission don't look at stats alone:). And, of course, whether the data for China are accurate is an open question(de-valuation of Yuan etc.). In china bureaucrats tightly control capital allocation to private firms. It's widely claimed that Chinese markets have Capitalization of $400+ billion, but if you factor out non-tradeable shares owned by government, the figure reduces to $150 billion(Source: Foreign Policy 2003). Stats tell a different story- the Macroeconomic story. At the micro level things are quiet different.</p>
<h1>In a survey of 25 emerging market economies conducted in 2000 by Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia, China ranked 19th in corporate governance.</h1>
<h1>Forbes 200 features only 4 companies from Mainland China.</h1>
<p>
[quote]
Well, India, although proud of her ultra-free economic practices for now, will eventually have to pursue a more socialist agenda if she still wants the support of her 1 billion+ citizens. Exploitations of workers and corporate control of economy and politics will have to come to a halt through the implemention of socialist schemes like far-reaching government controls, subsidies to farmers, pension and medical plans for workers, and etc.
[/quote]
Well, Chinese policies are a lot more liberal than Indian. Giving aid to farmers isn't a Socialistic policy, if it were then US would be the greatest Socialistic society followed by EU. Indian and Chinese stories are completely different and can't be compared. To summarize China’s export-led manufacturing boom is largely a creation of foreign direct investment (fdi), which effectively serves as a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. We will have to see if it works in the long run.
PS: Does my name sounds Indian? Is it because of Shiv in my name?</p>
<p>Yeah, it's 'Shiv' part.</p>
<p>I thought it was because of the "abhi" part.</p>
<p>Cool, i thaught that Ravi and Krishna were the only Indian names recognized in the west:)
I don't know who/what are Center-right Conservative are in canada but i hate Indian leftists(Communists) from the bottom of my heart. Btw will you mentioning that you were a memeber of Conservative party on your app? What if the admission officer be a Liberal?</p>
<p>I don't agree at all with the post stating that US education is often cheaper than EU education. For me, for example, it is the money that will probably prevent me from attending a top notch college in the states. Stanford, for example, is very reluctant in offering financial aid to international applicants. In contrary, as a EU student I can enjoy an excellent education at Cambridge (UK) for about 10,000$ a year. That's about 30,000$ dollar less per year. Huge.
USA is great, the colleges are very nice. I'd really love to go there, and I'd probably choose USA over Cambridge if there wasn't the financial dimension which somehow makes my personal "American Dream" quite impossible.</p>
<p>aw5k, just for your information, according to recent news, Stanford is now seriously considering to give financial aid to international students (reference: <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/education/15862122.htm)%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/education/15862122.htm)</a>. However, I don't know when the policy will be applied. </p>
<p>Well, that's only in the case of Stanford, however.</p>
<p>Anyway, I personally am interested in going to the US to pursue my undergraduate education because I believe that a US education will give me beyond-class education as well as in-class education (academics). Also, the academics are of much higher quality than my local colleges. It is going to be very costly, however, and my family won't be able to afford a US education by ourselves, so - as in the case of many other international students - I need financial aids badly to support my education. Well, then again, an education in the US is of more interest to me because I can get financial aid even though I'm an international student. Very few of other countries are willing to help international students in financial matters.</p>
<p>Um... French colleges are free, even for international students.</p>
<p>[aw5k] I think you are underestimating the cost of a Cambridge education. It is true that, as an undergraduate EU student, you'd have to pay only slightly more than 3,000 pounds/year in tuition fees and your college fee would be most likely waived (although I'm not entirely sure about that). However, you'd still need over 6,000 pounds/year (more likely 7,000 actually) for miscellaneous living expenses, including college dorm rents. Overall then, it would add up to almost 10,000 pounds/year or 20,000 US dollars at current exchange rates. Of course, for a non-EU student who would have to pay full tuition (over 10,000 pounds/year) plus college fees (3,000+ pounds/year), the necessary amout would be twice as that (i.e 40,000 US dollars/year). Please correct me if I´m wrong.</p>
<p>[aw5k] BTW, you may be aware that several top UK universities have been lobbying Parliament and the government to introduce legislation allowing British universities to charge full international tuition from non-UK EU students. Although I'm not a lawyer, I suspect however that would be probably illegal under EU law. Since EU law actually supersedes domestic UK law, any such legislation could probably be challenged then, first in British courts and, ultimately, in the European Court of Justice itself. </p>
<p>In any case, if you live in any advanced EU country like Germany or France, I don't see any major reason to move to the US or even Britain for undergrad studies, when you can go to university (almost) for free in your own country and probably still get a quality education . In fact, I personally believe undergraduate education in continental Europe is better than in the States. There is a strong case though IMHO for going to the US for graduate, especially PhD, studies. And, in that latter case, financial aid covering full tuition plus a monthly stipend is a given once you're admitted into a top university (at least in science and engineering, I don't know how it works for arts/humanities).</p>
<p>"Why would anyone living and studying in America want to work anywhere else? It's everybody's dream (or at least people over here) to live and work in the USA."</p>
<p>I'm an American living in Canada and I am shocked to see how many Americans are flocking to U of T and McGill simply because it offers prestige at a much lower price ($10000 a year including housing) compared to some American schools (40000/yr). </p>
<p>Also EU schools are very expensive for international students. My cousin from Hong Kong is paying $100000 U.S. a year to go to oxford.</p>
<p>For an undergrad experience a lot of the European schools are more rigorous but the US system is more flexible.
Personally, having lived in four countries including the States I can answer with a resounding no, that it is definitely not my dream to live there, at least not permanently. Canada's also a reputable place to study and teh cost is much lower. A potential reason fro me woudl be that US degrees are well-reagred world-wide and I intent to do a lot international service/work related travel so if I were to get in from New Zealand, I am not sure how many people would know about the schools tehre and what they teach. But again, gettinga degree from Canada I would say is also highly regarded, so I would sweat it too much if that's where I got my degree.</p>