tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (05/14/89)
One of the latest schemes for extracting more money from the government by public universities is the "shortage of American grad students" scam. The claim is that by diverting more money from tax payers to state supported institutions this problem will somehow be solved. Even statists can't escape economic law. So let's analyze the situation. First, there is no shortage of applicants for admission to grad school, in fact there is a surplus. Since public universities are directly financed by the state to a large degree, the costs to the university of educating the student are not fully reflected in the tuition and fees the student must pay for his education. In such circumstances, it would be surprising if there weren't a surplus of applicants. Since market forces don't keep the quantity of students desiring to get into grad school in balance with the space available, various non-economic schemes have evolved for eliminating applicants, such as test scores, academic history, racial quotas, and so on. Now enter foreign students into the equation. Americans are outnumbered by roughly 20 to 1 in population when compared to the rest of the world. Since we allow foreign students to come to American universities, if foreign students were given a subsidy to come here it would be highly surprising if the foreign students weren't able to score higher than the American students on admissions tests. In fact, that is what happens; foreign students pay higher fees than American students, but not the full costs of their education. Since American universities are of higher quality on average than the norm, worldwide, foreign students have a strong incentive to come here to study. This is not a criticism of foreign students, certainly they ought to act in their own best interests. It is a criticism of using tax payers money to subsidize American institutions, allowing them to escape the forces of economic competition. Certainly the foreign students here are better on average than the American students. When you are picking the cream of the crop from a worldwide population of 6 billion (or whatever) to compete with the cream of the crop from a population of 300 million (or whatever) it would be very strange if the smaller group could compete on even terms. So what is the way out? End direct subsidies of American public schools. Since education is a public good, and students have limited financial resources, you can retain the benefits of education by indirect financing through tuition tax credits for education, and education vouchers, allowing students to choose for themselves which schools best serve their educational needs. By allowing market competition to come into play, public costs of supporting education will be minimized. Students will no longer have to put up with an abusive educational aristocracy that treats students like inferiors, while in fact this aristocracy feeds itself on the tax money of these same students and their parents. When these aristocrats have to earn their money by serving the students, you can bet they will change their tune. What is likely to happen? The self-interested class of state financed educators and bureaucrats will continue the process of myth-making and obfuscation, designed to perpetuate their state subsidy. Endless programs for educational reform will be introduced, none of which will work as long as economic law is ignored. The tax payers will continue to support a class of academic parasites that pretends to be a noble elite serving lofty ends, while sucking the life-blood out of the tax payers.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (05/14/89)
In article <29168@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: >One of the latest schemes for extracting more money from >the government by public universities is the "shortage of >American grad students" scam. Ted, you're paranoid. Get help. Please. I'm serious. >First, there is no shortage of applicants for admission to >grad school, in fact there is a surplus. Since public There's a surplus of everything, but you can't eat raw or spoiled meat and you can't use idiots to teach college or conduct research. >universities are directly financed by the state to a large >degree, the costs to the university of educating the student >are not fully reflected in the tuition and fees the student >must pay for his education. In such circumstances, it would >be surprising if there weren't a surplus of applicants. Suddenly you get subjunctive about your thesis. Are you sure you weren't just blowing smoke when you stated that thesis? >Since market forces don't keep the quantity of students desiring >to get into grad school in balance with the space available, >various non-economic schemes have evolved for eliminating >applicants, such as test scores, academic history, racial >quotas, and so on. Yeah. It couldn't possibly be true that those tests are used to grade applicants on the pertinent aspects of the job, e.g., knowledge and academic ability; nor that racial quotas exist to provide a corrective impetus to prejudicially imbalanced educational achievement among the races... No, if the school can't admit the first fifty to get the application to them, correctly filled out or not, then the school must be running a scam. (Reread the line above about "Ted, you're paranoid" and add to it "you're also schizophrenic.") >Now enter foreign students into the equation. Americans are >outnumbered by roughly 20 to 1 in population when compared >to the rest of the world. Since we allow foreign students >to come to American universities, if foreign students were >given a subsidy to come here it would be highly surprising >if the foreign students weren't able to score higher than the >American students on admissions tests. In fact, that is what >happens; foreign students pay higher fees than American students, >but not the full costs of their education. Since American >universities are of higher quality on average than the norm, >worldwide, foreign students have a strong incentive to come >here to study. This last sentence is absolutely true. I'm proud of you, Ted. Unfortunately, you make no sense up to that point, nor do any of the preceding sentences add to that point. Foreign students are almost always fully funded by their home country. >This is not a criticism of foreign students, certainly they ought >to act in their own best interests. It is a criticism of using >tax payers money to subsidize American institutions, allowing >them to escape the forces of economic competition. Certainly Nope. The money doesn't just show up on the doorstep. It gets there through grants for research, work-study, et cetera. >the foreign students here are better on average than the >American students. When you are picking the cream of the crop >from a worldwide population of 6 billion (or whatever) to >compete with the cream of the crop from a population of >300 million (or whatever) it would be very strange if the >smaller group could compete on even terms. > >So what is the way out? End direct subsidies of American >public schools. The foreigners, who would be here regardless, are somehow benefitting from it, so destroy the system so that only those who can pay full-freight are allowed to attend? That leaves the opportunistically wealthy, and the foreign. Forget any chance of increasing US student enrollements. Death to Equal Opportunity. Heck, so what if eliminating graduate students leads to an overall reduction of the quality of undergraduate education? (You think yer perfessers were overworked and underresponsive? Just imagine if they had to do _all_ the grading, discussing, tutoring, ad nauseum...) >Since education is a public good, and students >have limited financial resources, you can retain the benefits >of education by indirect financing through tuition tax credits >for education, and education vouchers, allowing students to >choose for themselves which schools best serve their educational >needs. By allowing market competition to come into play, public >costs of supporting education will be minimized. Students will No go, jo blo. Market competition exists hokay-fine among private universities. So, what do they do? They all fight like hell to see who is the "most exclusive" and "most expensive", making it a badge of honor. Since it attracts the prestige-points on the TV, it's solid gold in the admissions office. >no longer have to put up with an abusive educational aristocracy >that treats students like inferiors, while in fact this aristocracy >feeds itself on the tax money of these same students and their >parents. When these aristocrats have to earn their money by >serving the students, you can bet they will change their tune. Thanks for the title. Any land go with that, my emperor? And while the landed gentry are scraping the bottom of their well-greased barrels to come up with the scratch to make tuition for Millard Featherstoneshaugh III to go to State U. next term, just where is Freddie "Crip" Jackson going to find a city college with two books in its library that will enroll a kid with a GED? >What is likely to happen? The self-interested class of state >financed educators and bureaucrats will continue the process >of myth-making and obfuscation, designed to perpetuate their >state subsidy. Endless programs for educational reform will >be introduced, none of which will work as long as economic law >is ignored. The tax payers will continue to support a class >of academic parasites that pretends to be a noble elite serving >lofty ends, while sucking the life-blood out of the tax payers. What is likely to happen is that 60% of the higher-educational capacity of the United States will disappear, eliminating not only 60% of the foreigner-brought tuition money, but 60% of the undergraduate enrollment, and 90% of the highschool-hopefuls. If you think the US has a rotten educational system now, just wait until you've removed all the incentive to perform in grades K-12. What we need is an _increase_ in university funding, an _increase_ in enrollment, and an _increase_ in the educational opportunity for an undereducated population. How about some ideas on how we can get this increase from somewhere other than the overstretched federal budget, or the stripped-clean pockets of the students' families (which is where the shortfall was when we went to government funding in the first place)? --Blair "I hear Libertarians rarely eat their young, but fight to the death for their right to do so..."
elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) (05/15/89)
in article <29168@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) says: > One of the latest schemes for extracting more money from > the government by public universities is the "shortage of > American grad students" scam. Yawn. Looking at where Tom Tedrick is posting the bulletin from tells the whole story. Hate to tell you this, Tom, but most public universities are NOT like UCB, which may or may not be as bad as you say (but that's irrelevant). I attend one of those "greedy bastard public universities" you so decry, one that's actively recruiting foreign students to its graduate CS program. Unlike UCB, we don't get to choose the cream of the crop. From what I've seen, USL's graduate CS program will accept just about anybody who has the foggiest chance of succeeding in the curriculum... but American grad students are still in the minority. Without the foreign grad students, USL's research efforts would be severely crippled, although instruction probably would suffer little (most of the grad students who deal directly with the undergrad student body seem to be American-born). Go take your ivory tower conspiracies and retreat back to your own personal tower at Berkeley. The blue-collar public universities of the U.S. don't need that kind of hysteria-mongering... they already have enough trouble getting adequate funding and sufficient enrollments of talented students (who, naturally, would rather be going to MIT or Berkeley). -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | | // Join the Church of HAL, and worship at the altar of all computers | |\X/ with three-letter names (e.g. IBM and DEC). White lab coats optional.|
johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (05/16/89)
In article <29168@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: > . . . . Since American > universities are of higher quality on average than the norm, > worldwide, foreign students have a strong incentive to come > here to study. Although there are undoubtedly some very good American universities, this assertion may not be completely accurate. One only has to compare the admissions standards for a lot of US schools with those of other countries to see that standards expected in the US are quite low in many cases. The fact that such a large proportion of Americans go to university (40% ??) is an indication of this differing standard, especially when compared to nations where education is heavily subsidised or even free. - John Murray (My own opinions, etc.)
matloff@mole.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (05/17/89)
********************* NOTE ************************* Before beginning, I should say "where I am coming from." I am in charge of Computer Science graduate admissions here at UC Davis. Because of this, and because of the fact that this newsgroup is comp.edu, I will limit my remarks to Computer Science grad students, though most of my remarks can be extended. ******************************************************** In article <29168@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: >One of the latest schemes for extracting more money from >the government by public universities is the "shortage of >American grad students" scam. As others have pointed out in response to your posting, it's not a "scam" at all. The number of Americans who are interested in grad school is appallingly small. >Even statists can't escape economic law. So let's analyze >the situation. Whenever I see someone who feels that he/she can explain all aspects of life through economics, I do get a little suspicious... >Now enter foreign students into the equation. Americans are >outnumbered by roughly 20 to 1 in population when compared >to the rest of the world. The "rest of the world" is not what's relevant. The FACT is that foreign grad students are primarily from only a few countries, mainly China, Taiwan and India. And if you then want to say, "Yes, but the combined size of China and India is X times that of the U.S.", you would again have a fallacious argument. The bulk of the populations in those two countries don't grow up in an environment that leads to graduate study. >Since American >universities are of higher quality on average than the norm, >worldwide, foreign students have a strong incentive to come >here to study. Ironically, in spite of your obsession with economics, you've missed the *real* economic aspect here: Most foreign students come here NOT for the quality of the schools, but rather because after graduation they can be hired by American employers at salaries which are much higher than what they can get in their home countries. Since American employment also entails sponsorship for American immigration, which leads to better economic opportunities for other members of the foreign students' families, there is indeed a very strong economic incentive to come to the U.S. for grad school. But it's not the incentive of quality of school -- it's the incentive of a better economic future. In fact, if American employers were willing to hire foreigners **directly** from their home countries, i.e. without first attending an American university, you'd see a big drop in the number of foreign grad students too. Norm
matloff@mole.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (05/17/89)
In article <2857@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >Foreign students are almost >always fully funded by their home country. At least for CS, EE, etc., this is NOT the case. In fact, even those who do have support offered to them by their home government often refuse it, so as not to be obligated to return after graduation. Norm
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) (05/17/89)
In article <24490@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: )In article <2857@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: ) )>Foreign students are almost )>always fully funded by their home country. ) )At least for CS, EE, etc., this is NOT the case. In fact, even those )who do have support offered to them by their home government often )refuse it, so as not to be obligated to return after graduation. Shucks, and I thought we were exporting education. :-) Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil | luxury than of arms, they lose wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
880716a@aucs.UUCP (Dave Astels) (05/17/89)
I'm currently working on a Bachelor of Computer Science at the above said university (in Canada). I've just finished my first year here, although it consisted of various level courses, with mostly second year CS (and a fourth year project course thrown in). I got 5 A+ & and A, my CGPA is 4.24 (A = 4.00, A+ = 4.33). I plan to go on to Master's & Phd studies. I am wondering what the possibilities (and fees, etc) would be generally like if I wanted to try to get into an American university with a strong AI program (in Natural Language) such as Yale, MIT, Stanford... I have two more years here, but I am interested in finding this out so I can have as many options open as possible. -Dave
matloff@mole.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (05/18/89)
In article <1104@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <24490@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >)In article <2857@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >)>Foreign students are almost >)>always fully funded by their home country. >)At least for CS, EE, etc., this is NOT the case. In fact, even those >)who do have support offered to them by their home government often >)refuse it, so as not to be obligated to return after graduation. >Shucks, and I thought we were exporting education. :-) Anyone who has spent some time in the Silicon Valley would add a lot more :-) marks. In fact, there are so many engineers who came to the U.S. from China or Taiwan originally as students that there are many companies in which Mandarin, not English, is the main language spoken. During the 8 or 9 years I've been teaching CS here at Davis, almost no foreign students have returned to their home countries. NONE of the students from Taiwan has returned; NONE of the students from China has returned; only 2 of the students from Hong Kong have returned; NONE of the students from India have returned. TIME magazine said that 90% of the Taiwanese students stay in the U.S. and become immigrants after graduation. But even this is misleadingly low, because it includes the less-employable fields like sociology or history. For the CS, EE, etc. majors, the proportion is very near 100%. Norm
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) (05/18/89)
In article <24520@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes:
)
)During the 8 or 9 years I've been teaching CS here at Davis, almost
)no foreign students have returned to their home countries. NONE of
)the students from Taiwan has returned; NONE of the students from
)China has returned; only 2 of the students from Hong Kong have
)returned; NONE of the students from India have returned.
)
So what is this about a shortage of American grad students? These folks
are as American as my grandparents. BTW the original "shortage" posting
was _not_ by Norm Matloff ... just thought I'd make that clear.
Regards,
--
Will Bralick | If we desire to defeat the enemy,
wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil | we must proportion our efforts to
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitzshankar@pompeii.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) (05/19/89)
In article <29168@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: >First, there is no shortage of applicants for admission to >grad school, in fact there is a surplus. Since public >universities are directly financed by the state to a large >degree, the costs to the university of educating the student >must pay for his education. In such circumstances, it would >be surprising if there weren't a surplus of applicants. And taken to its logical conclusion, there would be never a shortage of anything subsidized by the government. Never mind that there have been and are shortages of educated people of all forms. >happens; foreign students pay higher fees than American students, >but not the full costs of their education. Since American >universities are of higher quality on average than the norm, >worldwide, foreign students have a strong incentive to come >here to study. Foreign students pay the same fees as any out of state resident at state schools, and the same as all students at private schools. Also, the strong incentive is not for the "superior American universities", but the more affluent American lifestyle that follows graduation in America and getting a job here. Universities around the world are as good as American universities (except perhaps for the facilities), and often better in more mathematical areas. > [stuff about eliminating funding of education, and having vouchers] >needs. By allowing market competition to come into play, public >costs of supporting education will be minimized. Competition *does exist at the college level, particularly in grad school. There are few who go to grad school at their home state school, in engineering and computer science. And there are numerous good private schools. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (05/19/89)
In article <1108@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <24520@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: *)During the 8 or 9 years I've been teaching CS here at Davis, almost *)no foreign students have returned to their home countries. NONE of *)the students from Taiwan has returned; NONE of the students from *)China has returned; only 2 of the students from Hong Kong have *)returned; NONE of the students from India have returned. >So what is this about a shortage of American grad students? These folks >are as American as my grandparents. You misunderstood. A "foreign student" is a student who holds an F-1 or J-1 visa. An "American student" is a student who is either a U.S. Citizen or U.S. Permanent Resident (i.e. green-card holder). So there was nothing in my comments to characterize Americans of foreign ancestry as "non-American." By the way, my father was an immigrant from Eastern Europe, and my wife is an immigrant from Hong Kong. I certainly consider both of them as AMERICANS. Norm
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) (05/19/89)
In article <24594@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <1108@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes: >>In article <24520@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: ) )*)During the 8 or 9 years I've been teaching CS here at Davis, almost )*)no foreign students have returned to their home countries. NONE of )*)the students from Taiwan has returned; NONE of the students from )*)China has returned; only 2 of the students from Hong Kong have )*)returned; NONE of the students from India have returned. ) )>So what is this about a shortage of American grad students? These folks )>are as American as my grandparents. ) )You misunderstood. I also expressed myself poorly. The point that I was trying to make was that if people come to the US and pursue graduate studies and then stay and become US citizens, then, while they may not have been American citizens during their programs, the net effect is the same, i.e. another American PhD or MS or whatever. ) )A "foreign student" is a student who holds an F-1 or J-1 visa. ) )An "American student" is a student who is either a U.S. Citizen )or U.S. Permanent Resident (i.e. green-card holder). Point taken. ) )So there was nothing in my comments to characterize Americans of )foreign ancestry as "non-American." By the way, my father was an )immigrant from Eastern Europe, and my wife is an immigrant from )Hong Kong. I certainly consider both of them as AMERICANS. ) Yes. There was nothing in your comments to characterize Americans of foreign ancestry as "non-American." I didn't mean to imply that there was. I apologize for having failed to express myself clearly. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil | luxury than of arms, they lose wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
matloff@tinman.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (05/20/89)
In article <1112@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <24594@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>In article <1108@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes: >>>In article <24520@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >)*)During the 8 or 9 years I've been teaching CS here at Davis, almost >)*)no foreign students have returned to their home countries. NONE of >)*)the students from Taiwan has returned; NONE of the students from >)*)China has returned; only 2 of the students from Hong Kong have >)*)returned; NONE of the students from India have returned. >)>So what is this about a shortage of American grad students? These folks >)>are as American as my grandparents. >)You misunderstood. *I also expressed myself poorly. The point that I was trying to make *was that if people come to the US and pursue graduate studies and then *stay and become US citizens, then, while they may not have been American *citizens during their programs, the net effect is the same, i.e. another *American PhD or MS or whatever. Right!!!! I have tried to explain this to the California State Legislature, which has demanded that all UC campuses hold foreign enrollment in engineering down to 28%. But they just don't understand. If only they could spend some time in the Silicon Valley and see how much it is depending on engineers who originally came to the U.S. as foreign students, then maybe these legislators would get the point. Meanwhile, they're the same idiots who keep complaining that we can't compete with Japan in electronics! Norm