The admissions change we can maybe all agree on . . .

[Anonymous]

About as entertaining as a bum fight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International students have grown to over 15 percent, sometimes well over 20 percent of the class at elite schools. Nearly all these students are full pay from wealthy families because only a handful of schools provide aid to international students.
Congress should pass a law that any school receiving federal research money to limit international students to no more than five percent of the class, similar to the restrictions some state schools put on out of state students. More spots for do oestic students of all races and ethnicities.

Nope dumb idea; here are a few reasons why:

Schools need the full pay students to lower COA for US students,
Percentages not as high as you claim at elite schools,
American students go abroad to study, do you want to create an International student trade war,
International students come in all types, so they bring diversity as well,
...

Here's a novel idea... what if universities lowered the cost of college so that they don't need expensive full pay international students to cover US students?

Also, the reason why international students want to come to the US for school is because of jobs. US colleges lead to better job prospects in the US. Those are all jobs that could go to Americans.

I'm not against foreign visa workers. I married a foreign visa worker. But, we don't need that many international students in our colleges. They can compete for jobs after they are educated elsewhere.

The cost of college has skyrocketed. There is no reason for it.

You really think there is no reason college cost more today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

[Anonymous]

Let’s tank our economy so Johnny can get into his reach school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

The point is you are making arguments without really knowing what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

You’re talking in circles. So it’s ok to admit domestic students only when they can full pay but not when they come from elsewhere? What’s the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

The point is you are making arguments without really knowing what you are talking about.

Let's not let the facts get in the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

Are you suggesting there are plenty of domestic full pay students who didn't get to go to college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

The point is you are making arguments without really knowing what you are talking about.

Exactly. We have a true amateur on our hands here.

[Anonymous]

So the OP wants affirmative action for domestic students instead of selecting the most highly qualified applicants who can contribute the most to the university?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

Are you suggesting there are plenty of domestic full pay students who didn't get to go to college?

I’m saying we don’t need full pay international students to keep the system afloat. Of course, the premise wasn’t eliminating international students but limiting them to 5 percent of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

Are you suggesting there are plenty of domestic full pay students who didn't get to go to college?

I’m saying we don’t need full pay international students to keep the system afloat. Of course, the premise wasn’t eliminating international students but limiting them to 5 percent of the class.

What’s so magical about 5%? Is that the maximum percentage of Asians you can handle before vomiting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the OP wants affirmative action for domestic students instead of selecting the most highly qualified applicants who can contribute the most to the university?

The point is that are many more qualified domestic students than slots for them at most selective schools. Limiting international students to five percent of the class would allow more qualified domestic students to attend. Let’s not pretend that these students aren’t being selected in part because they are full pay, not because of greater merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

Are you suggesting there are plenty of domestic full pay students who didn't get to go to college?

I’m saying we don’t need full pay international students to keep the system afloat. Of course, the premise wasn’t eliminating international students but limiting them to 5 percent of the class.

What’s so magical about 5%? Is that the maximum percentage of Asians you can handle before vomiting?

Why do you keep assuming all international students are Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But according to pro-legacy advocates, those schools need the $$ to provide financial aid to needy students. International students pay a buttload of money to go to those univs.

(I think this is a BS argument, btw).

That IS a BS argument. I read somewhere that Harvard can afford to subsidize tuition for all their students by upto 95% just on the returns of their endowments alone. They don't need the money. Also, every International student not being admitted can very easily be replaced by a full-pay US student so there's no revenue loss. This is just the ivies and other top schools being pretentious A-holes. They should just open satellite campuses (if not already there) at these countries (India, China, Middle East) and have foreign kids go there with a semester abroad in the US.

Yeah, but that's like telling high HHI family they don't need money. Of course they NEED money. High endowment =/= not needing money.

When you (the 'private non-profit ' university lives off the tax-payer's handout (i.e. pay zero tax)), we get to tell you what to do. Of course, we need representatives in congress with ethics and a backbone to do this.

Do you get to tell other non-profits what to do? Nope. Not in this way.

You must be unfamiliar with how government contracting works.

As an apparent expert, you likely know then that there are also differences between federal contracts and federal grants.

The point is that federal funding often comes with restrictions, sometimes many restrictions. I am not interested in funding excessive amount of international stidents, five percent of the class is plenty.

It's clear you don't know much about federal funding/grants - yes grants come with many strings but the money is tied to research scope, not how policy should be set. That part is up to each school.

Your argument is stupid, there is no question legislation to this effect could be passed and would be constitutional. Of course you could argue it is a bad idea for different reasons, but it is definitely feasible.

Serious question. Are you a MAGA?

Nope lifelong Democrat who believes in affirmative action. Just think there would be a lot less anger about increasing racial diversity if the universe of available slots was larger. I think there is more benefit to increasing diversity, both racial/ethnic and economic, among domestic students, than giving slots to wealthy international students.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.

Why? I assure you that I am and I’ve voted in every election. I find it really interesting that those who rail against legacies are fine with foreigners admitted because they are full pay.

You’re really giving yourself away. No true blooded Dem derides international students as “foreigners.”

Giving spots to the highest bidders is pretty anti democratic.

So now spots are given away by bidding?

That’s what favoring full pay over other students effectively is. It doesn’t happen with respect to domestic students because admissions are need blind.

(DP) Admissions are not need blind everywhere. And how are you going to run a university if not enough people pay?

There are plenty of domestic full pay students.

Are you suggesting there are plenty of domestic full pay students who didn't get to go to college?

I’m saying we don’t need full pay international students to keep the system afloat. Of course, the premise wasn’t eliminating international students but limiting them to 5 percent of the class.

What’s so magical about 5%? Is that the maximum percentage of Asians you can handle before vomiting?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the greatest percentage of American students is at any university outside the US? Full time enrollment, not semester abroad, to compare apples to apples. I’d be surprise if there is any foreign university with more than five percent full time American undergraduates.