Maybe it would be a good thing if Trump limited international students at t100 schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

International students are a major source of funding. They are almost all full pay (sometimes at higher rates than Americans) so they subsidize financial aid as well as their programs of study.

If the government were paying for universities - as it could and arguably should, so that everyone could have a low-cost or free education - then maybe we could talk about it. But as it is, limiting international students would just reduce what the university can afford to do for Americans.

NP. At top universities - at least top 20, top 50, there are enough domestic full pay applicants to make up that funding.

Enough domestic full pay applicants without the university meaningfully lowering their admissions standards? Or are you just saying that if you let in anybody who can pay, you will find enough people who want to go?

I'm sure there's a lot of variation in how admissions are done, but the schools I'm familiar with have a separate application for international students. Domestic students are not truly competing with the international pool for the same spots.

There are 100,000 high schools in the U.S. which means that there are 500,000 kids who graduate in the top 5 of their class. Surely there are enough full pay kids in the U.S. who also meet academic standards.

+1. My high stats full pay kid will be attending a T70 while kids from other countries with lower stats are being paid to attend top US colleges. There are plenty of full pay families in the US with academically qualified kids. Of course, there are a number of reasons top colleges choose to pay for international students to attend - clearly that has value to the college - but academic qualifications are not the reason.

That’s simply untrue. Your kid is at a T70. He didn’t have the stats. Period. Nobody is taking his spot. My son (unhooked/top stars) was accepted to multiple Ivies/T10/20s

4.0, 1570, 13 APs are, of course, insufficient only in DCUM fantasy land.

Similar sibling is at a T10. It isn't the stats.

Even you tell me he's Asian boy, I wouldn't believe it, it's really an outlier, this stats should be in T20, at least T30 without good EC or awards.

White

There is a chance a waitlist could turn into an acceptance, but not holding our breath.

Don't tell me your son wanted CS major, that's a different ball game, there was Asian boy in California two years back, with similar stats and tons of award, including semifinalist of Google coding competition, rejected by almost all T50 schools but UT Austin, he then was hired by Google earning 200k+/year.

Bad example.

His transcript really sucked relative to his school peers (He's from Palo Alto) and the Google job part is really played up but they leave out teh fact that his dad is an engineering leader at Google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

International students are a major source of funding. They are almost all full pay (sometimes at higher rates than Americans) so they subsidize financial aid as well as their programs of study.

If the government were paying for universities - as it could and arguably should, so that everyone could have a low-cost or free education - then maybe we could talk about it. But as it is, limiting international students would just reduce what the university can afford to do for Americans.

NP. At top universities - at least top 20, top 50, there are enough domestic full pay applicants to make up that funding.

Enough domestic full pay applicants without the university meaningfully lowering their admissions standards? Or are you just saying that if you let in anybody who can pay, you will find enough people who want to go?

I'm sure there's a lot of variation in how admissions are done, but the schools I'm familiar with have a separate application for international students. Domestic students are not truly competing with the international pool for the same spots.

There are 100,000 high schools in the U.S. which means that there are 500,000 kids who graduate in the top 5 of their class. Surely there are enough full pay kids in the U.S. who also meet academic standards.

Median household income is 80k, top 20 percent is 150k, there is no way those families can pay for 80-90k/year with after tax money, only a handful elite colleges will pay for talented kids from those families if they don't get Pell Grant.
BTW, there are about 26k high schools, talented kids only go to a small percentage of them.

DP. Take the top 10-20% from whatever number of high schools you think has talented kids.

Even TJ won't have 20% of class going to T20 colleges, there isn't just enough talented kids unless lowering standards.

Really? I thought that TJ was better than that. I can name a half dozen schools off of the op of my head in the bay area (public and private) where at least 50% (real number is probably higher)of the student body could attend a T20 without lowering the quality one bit.

For bay area, you have UCB and UCLA which are T20 in last few years ranking, UVA is T30 unfortunately. If you look at Sidwell, top private in D.C, it's also probably less than 20% going to T20.

Some privates are really small, less than 100 graduates, comparing to 500 in TJ, that will make difference.

[Anonymous]

Whatever happened to Republicans who wanted minimal government intrusion in their lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

International students are a major source of funding. They are almost all full pay (sometimes at higher rates than Americans) so they subsidize financial aid as well as their programs of study.

If the government were paying for universities - as it could and arguably should, so that everyone could have a low-cost or free education - then maybe we could talk about it. But as it is, limiting international students would just reduce what the university can afford to do for Americans.

NP. At top universities - at least top 20, top 50, there are enough domestic full pay applicants to make up that funding.

Enough domestic full pay applicants without the university meaningfully lowering their admissions standards? Or are you just saying that if you let in anybody who can pay, you will find enough people who want to go?

I'm sure there's a lot of variation in how admissions are done, but the schools I'm familiar with have a separate application for international students. Domestic students are not truly competing with the international pool for the same spots.

There are 100,000 high schools in the U.S. which means that there are 500,000 kids who graduate in the top 5 of their class. Surely there are enough full pay kids in the U.S. who also meet academic standards.

About 27,000 High Schools but we get your point and the answer is yes, there are.

Why do you think it should be Harvard's priority to educate US residents? We have many, many government universities to support our government needs. Harvard is a private institution. Why do you think it is obligated to serve our national interest? Do you expect Walmart to do the same? Is your employer required to prioritize US residents? And as for Harvard receiving federal grants, the US government does not invest in research out of the goodness of its heart, it does so because it is viewed as being in the national interest. Is some of it wasted? Is some of it used for projects I personally would not support? Yes of course, like pretty much all other areas of government investment and spending, so work to tighten that up. And maybe US government universities can learn from Harvard if spots at the school are viewed as so coveted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it wouldn't. We don't need affirmative action for domestic students. Our kids' experience is enhanced by having deserving international students and their perspectives in their class.

Finally, what Harvard and other selective institutions need to do is increase the overall number of seats to normalize admission rates a bit. There is so much demand (domestically and internationally). They should find a way to gradually increase seats each year (and make logistics plans to accommodate this).

Some schools have challenges finding the space but others could without issues. Bigger problem is that if they do the scarcity might change and then they will take crap for it. There was a different thread on DCUM where some posters went off the rails, accusing Middlebury of financial ruin when they announced that they were adding 50-70 seats over the next few years (the truth was that they replaced an old 250 person dorm with a new 300 person dorm).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

International students are a major source of funding. They are almost all full pay (sometimes at higher rates than Americans) so they subsidize financial aid as well as their programs of study.

If the government were paying for universities - as it could and arguably should, so that everyone could have a low-cost or free education - then maybe we could talk about it. But as it is, limiting international students would just reduce what the university can afford to do for Americans.

NP. At top universities - at least top 20, top 50, there are enough domestic full pay applicants to make up that funding.

Enough domestic full pay applicants without the university meaningfully lowering their admissions standards? Or are you just saying that if you let in anybody who can pay, you will find enough people who want to go?

I'm sure there's a lot of variation in how admissions are done, but the schools I'm familiar with have a separate application for international students. Domestic students are not truly competing with the international pool for the same spots.

There are 100,000 high schools in the U.S. which means that there are 500,000 kids who graduate in the top 5 of their class. Surely there are enough full pay kids in the U.S. who also meet academic standards.

+1. My high stats full pay kid will be attending a T70 while kids from other countries with lower stats are being paid to attend top US colleges. There are plenty of full pay families in the US with academically qualified kids. Of course, there are a number of reasons top colleges choose to pay for international students to attend - clearly that has value to the college - but academic qualifications are not the reason.

That’s simply untrue. Your kid is at a T70. He didn’t have the stats. Period. Nobody is taking his spot. My son (unhooked/top stars) was accepted to multiple Ivies/T10/20s

-1 DP here and it's not a matter of having the stats. These schools are called lottery schools because there are so many kids with the stats to get in and some will, some won't. We have more than enough qualified domestic students to reduce foreign students back to around 5%.

Enough with using our taxpayer dollars to fund opportunities for kids from other countries. These elite universities have [b]sold their agendas to the highest bidders from other countries that don't have our best interests at heart and now they're bastions of anti-American activity.[/b] I'm all for correcting this.

Utter nonsense

You know who has sold their agendas to the highest bidder? Our current president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

International students are a major source of funding. They are almost all full pay (sometimes at higher rates than Americans) so they subsidize financial aid as well as their programs of study.

If the government were paying for universities - as it could and arguably should, so that everyone could have a low-cost or free education - then maybe we could talk about it. But as it is, limiting international students would just reduce what the university can afford to do for Americans.

NP. At top universities - at least top 20, top 50, there are enough domestic full pay applicants to make up that funding.

But beyond their parent's networth, are they all qualified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There aren't any worthwhile students outside of the t60 or so (after Tulane.)

This is some seriously pretentious nonsense. I'm pretty sure that I'm worthwhile, at least my employer thinks so because they pay me 7 figures a year. I went to a non-selective public. It's people like yourself that reinforce the attitude carried by many of the MAGA crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

International students are a major source of funding. They are almost all full pay (sometimes at higher rates than Americans) so they subsidize financial aid as well as their programs of study.

If the government were paying for universities - as it could and arguably should, so that everyone could have a low-cost or free education - then maybe we could talk about it. But as it is, limiting international students would just reduce what the university can afford to do for Americans.

NP. At top universities - at least top 20, top 50, there are enough domestic full pay applicants to make up that funding.

But beyond their parent's networth, are they all qualified?

A quick bit of AI work says about 1 million families with college age kids in the US. Should be about 2 million kids. Take the top 10% and you have 200,000 spread them over 4 years and you have 50K per year. Just estimates but you could make a solid argument that the answer is yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't any worthwhile students outside of the t60 or so (after Tulane.)

This is some seriously pretentious nonsense. I'm pretty sure that I'm worthwhile, at least my employer thinks so because they pay me 7 figures a year. I went to a non-selective public. It's people like yourself that reinforce the attitude carried by many of the MAGA crowd.

Why would you admit to that? It's a bit shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be a good thing if the top US schools educated and prepared more US students? Is what's happening at harvard a blessing in disguise?

Maybe the government should limit the number of international students at all top schools. Getting in and the cost of attending is just too much.

1) no, school should admit who they want to create the culture and fill the program as their board mandates
2) there should not be any role for government in college admission decisions, none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm almost positive that the majority of international students at a school like Harvard are graduate students.

That is how it used to be. There has been an absolutely massive uptick in the number of international students at top schools for undergraduate. This is what has changed. International students used to be mainly graduate students. Now so many are undergraduate students. This is from Common Data Set for 23-24

Harvard Freshman Enrollment
In state students: 210. (12.7%)
Out of state students: 1167 (70.9%)
International Students: 268 (16.2%)
Total first time first degree seeking: 1645

It is a private school. What does in state or out of state mean in this context?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to see how Fox News (on web) was covering the Harvard story and didn't find it. Instead found:

Jessica Biel shares rare glimpse into Montana family life with Justin Timberlake after leaving Hollywood

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jessica-biel-shares-rare-glimpse-montana-family-life-justin-timberlake-after-leaving-hollywood

Sounds like we all need a little more Montana in our lives.

That's because the Harvard story was meant to distract left-leaning media from the Big Beautiful Bill that the GOP just passed. It's not a coincidence that both things happened at the same time. Flood the Zone with news and it drowns out what you don't want them talking about.

What is the left leaning media you are talking about? Because the media I have been scanning hasn't really talked about the BBB but rather Biden and his failing heath and other BS having nothing to do with the issues of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm almost positive that the majority of international students at a school like Harvard are graduate students.

That is how it used to be. There has been an absolutely massive uptick in the number of international students at top schools for undergraduate. This is what has changed. International students used to be mainly graduate students. Now so many are undergraduate students. This is from Common Data Set for 23-24

Harvard Freshman Enrollment
In state students: 210. (12.7%)
Out of state students: 1167 (70.9%)
International Students: 268 (16.2%)
Total first time first degree seeking: 1645

It is a private school. What does in state or out of state mean in this context?

NP. I think the PP was simply quoting from the Common Data Set. Those categories are in section C1. All it means is state of residence and the distinction isn't relevant. Perhaps they were trying to get at the total for domestic students, which would be in state and OOS combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard and other top private institutions are top of the list precisely because they have the ability to select top students globally. It's not as though America made Harvard (or other institutions) great. They are remarkable international institutions that happen to be located in the US. And if the US wanted to prize education and knowledge, and prepare our kids academically, we could do so but have largely chosen other priorities. The problem isn't that Harvard has international students, it's that the US has made decisions, long-term, that education is not a priority so we have a harder time keeping up. And frankly, if Harvard needs to move out of the US, temporarily or long term, it as the money and ability to do so. That will hurt the US as Harvard graduate (from the US or elsewhere) make outsized positive impacts on national science and academic progress, and tend to be high intellectual and financial contributors. But they can increasingly go elsewhere for their studies and research and to settle down. Many other places are eager to take in our top talent and the international talent we have until recently attracted. China, the UK and Europe, among others, couldn't be happier with the US policies encouraging the international (and US) best and brightest to move elsewhere.

The first part of this is almost entirely incorrect. America certainly did make Harvard great. The relatively small number of international students that Harvard enrolled in its first 350+ years had almost no impact on its development.

The second part, however, is partially correct. The UK and EU will certainly try to attract top students. China not so much, except for the very limited purpose of expanding its own influence and power.