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

[Anonymous]

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.

No, an internet rando doesn’t get to tell a University what to do just because they pay taxes. Good lord, what idiots on here

That's not what I said, you moron! Are you calling our entire congress "internet randos"?! Did you even get through kindergarten?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I don't agree.

International students broadens the community at a university and eventually the relationships built and lessons learned help the US in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP agree on? No. It's such a tiny-brained DCUM suggestion in the first place. Almost Trumpian. Ridiculous.

Not really, nearly every state university restricts access to out of state residents. Nothing novel about this concept.

[Anonymous]

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 absolutely should be able to, especially if their behavior goes against what we would consider 'non-profit' objectives. Admitting international students who are essentially benefiting from tax payer's subsidy (even if they are full pay) qualifies for that treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's your problem with international students? I don't have any problem with whatever % schools want to accept. Education has no boundaries.

I don’t want universities to turn away highly qualified domestic applicants in favor of rich international students when my tax dollars are supporting the universities.

Are you going to tell the Red Cross who is worthy of saving in a storm?

[Anonymous]

I'm so sick of these tax arguments. The tax dollars are going to research which already has an approval process (based on the research). This doesn't open every unrelated activity to tax payer oversight. For that matter even if an individual tax payer has a gripe with the actual research dollars, they don't get to play the hey that's my money game. It's all of our money, no individual gets final say.

Anyway, wealthy international students might just add more to the land scape than a second kid from a the same HS.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with this for all the reasons mentioned so far but also because it would be essentially anti-immigrant. I'd be curious to know what percentage of international students remain in the US to work after graduating, paying taxes, starting businesses, and doing work that has large positive social benefits, in fields like technology and medical research. I would bet it is not an insignificant percentage, based on my anecdotal observations.

Something I think is strange about the current hand wringing over college admissions is that there is very little discussion of whether a college education is even valuable to all people. There are a lot of people who wind up in jobs where a college degree is superfluous, and where most training is vocational or on-the-job. Instead of trying to figure out a way to guarantee a 4-year college degree to everyone who wants one, what if we:

(1) invest more in vocational training, ensuring it is low cost or even free to HS students and graduates,

(2) incentivize companies to NOT require a college degree for every single position unless that degree is actually necessary to do the work -- we have an epidemic of credentialism in this country where many jobs that didn't used to require a degree now require a college degree and sometimes post-graduate work. Let's reverse that trend and create more opportunity for HS grads who may not want, or be cut out for, college.

(3) incentivize companies to offer more on-the-job training, especially for these entry-level, non-degree jobs. Again, this is something that used to be normal -- you'd get a job as an entry level assistant or clerk at 18 or 19, and then spend 10 years making low wages but learning the job, the industry, the customer based, etc., and that would become your qualification for a higher paying job. In some cases people would THEN go get a degree of some kind if needed, but the point was that entry-level jobs had real career value and were not just paychecks. They were practical learning experiences that you could build off of.

We've created a system where college is basically required to get a decent entry-level position, but college doesn't do a great job of preparing students in a practical sense for these jobs, and the companies no longer want to spend money to train and educate young workers -- they only want people who already know how to do the job. It's a messed up system and it's no wonder it's resulting in a highly-credentialed workforce that has a ton of student debt but struggles to pay it off. The people profiting from this are college and university administrators, student loan servicers, college admissions consultants, and lawyers who salivate over law suits to declare the admissions standards/procedures unfair. It makes no sense.

International students are not the problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s premise that elite colleges don’t give aid to international students is demonstrably incorrect. In fact the opposite is true. Many of the most elite are also the most generous to international students. Yet another completely full of shit know nothing poster. So frustrating.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/colleges-that-offer-the-most-financial-aid-to-international-students

Yes, but it is frustrating that you ignore the real issue: need blind admission for international students. They are not given aid when they are not admitted.

Some elite schools have need blind admission, and some don’t. This is not updated, but since you like US News and did provide a cite, here’s another one:

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/what-does-need-blind-admission-mean-for-international-students

I’m sorry, but I do not understand the point of this post. My point was that the OP is wrong in saying that elite colleges are full of full pay international students because the vast majority don’t give financial aid to international students when that is clearly and demonstrably incorrect. What is the point of your post exactly?

My point is that you are right but the underlying reason they give full financial aid to those international students who are admitted is that they have already been gatekeeped for income. International students are disproportionately full pay compared to domestic students. The implication of your post was that elite schools are being generous to internationals. Some indeed are, but many are not.

[Anonymous]

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).

Why BS? Where is the money going to come from?

From full-pay US students!

even better, lower the cost so that so many students don't need financial aid or take out huge loans.

It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

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.

A non-profit college (or other no -profit) is different than a non-profit that contracts with the government or are you considering Pell Grants and other federal student aid a government contract. The poster referred only to paying zero tax not government contracts.

[Anonymous]

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.

No this is stupid. How do you think colleges get their money? Without these full pay folks your price would be way higher. This is like the people that get annoyed at first class on planes. Sure -- eliminate it and your prices will go up because first is often paying for coach. The federal government should stay out of education in this way. Racial issues are different -- that is Constitutional. The rest should be left alone.

There are plenty of Americans who also pay full pay and would pay full pay. Schools don't need international students for the money when they have a population in the U.S. that would pay the same.

[Anonymous]

Asians are for diversity when it comes to international students (they’re 75% Asian). As for domestic students, diversity no way - discrimination!!!

[Anonymous]

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.

Who’s “we”? Do what?? I am perfectly okay as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with this for all the reasons mentioned so far but also because it would be essentially anti-immigrant. I'd be curious to know what percentage of international students remain in the US to work after graduating, paying taxes, starting businesses, and doing work that has large positive social benefits, in fields like technology and medical research. I would bet it is not an insignificant percentage, based on my anecdotal observations.

Something I think is strange about the current hand wringing over college admissions is that there is very little discussion of whether a college education is even valuable to all people. There are a lot of people who wind up in jobs where a college degree is superfluous, and where most training is vocational or on-the-job. Instead of trying to figure out a way to guarantee a 4-year college degree to everyone who wants one, what if we:

(1) invest more in vocational training, ensuring it is low cost or even free to HS students and graduates,

(2) incentivize companies to NOT require a college degree for every single position unless that degree is actually necessary to do the work -- we have an epidemic of credentialism in this country where many jobs that didn't used to require a degree now require a college degree and sometimes post-graduate work. Let's reverse that trend and create more opportunity for HS grads who may not want, or be cut out for, college.

(3) incentivize companies to offer more on-the-job training, especially for these entry-level, non-degree jobs. Again, this is something that used to be normal -- you'd get a job as an entry level assistant or clerk at 18 or 19, and then spend 10 years making low wages but learning the job, the industry, the customer based, etc., and that would become your qualification for a higher paying job. In some cases people would THEN go get a degree of some kind if needed, but the point was that entry-level jobs had real career value and were not just paychecks. They were practical learning experiences that you could build off of.

We've created a system where college is basically required to get a decent entry-level position, but college doesn't do a great job of preparing students in a practical sense for these jobs, and the companies no longer want to spend money to train and educate young workers -- they only want people who already know how to do the job. It's a messed up system and it's no wonder it's resulting in a highly-credentialed workforce that has a ton of student debt but struggles to pay it off. The people profiting from this are college and university administrators, student loan servicers, college admissions consultants, and lawyers who salivate over law suits to declare the admissions standards/procedures unfair. It makes no sense.

International students are not the problem here.

A student visa is not actually meant to be a path toward a GC and citizenship. Despite being used that way so frequently