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

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

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

What Asians?? Asian Americans are for limiting international students.
They take away seats for Americans..

[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.

Not sure what you are calling elite but 1) your 15% number is inflated and 2) this international percentage will go way up because of the post- affirmative action landscape and the upcoming democratic cliff. Oxbridge has 40-50% international. The United States percentage is minuscule in comparison.

This is the top 10 international percentage of selective schools. No Ivies, and only 1 top SLAC. The only schools over 20% are not elite schools.

Rochester 25%
New York University 24%
Boston University 22%
Grinnell 19%
Emory 18%
U. of Chicago 16%
Georgetown 15%
Northeastern 15%
Swarthmore 15%
Claremont McKenna 15%

On another note, if more internationals are admitted to help pay for an increased proportion of low-income students (to offset the fact that most URMs at elite schools were not low income), I’m OK with that.

Not sure of where you got these numbers but remember there was a dip in 2021 due to Covid. Here’s recent numbers ( class of 2027 where available.

Hopkins 19 percent

Columbia 15 percent

Carnegie Mellon 22 percent

USC 15 percent

Harvard 16 percent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

States are free to to that.

[Anonymous]

No, OP, just no.

The problem in this country is that we have spent the last several decades telling kids that they have to go to college to get ahead. But we don't have enough white collar jobs for all of those college educated kids. So, we have encouraged a lot of kids who might otherwise consider other options and who are not as well suited for white collar positions to go to college. Then, being mediocre students and workers, they are the ones that end up with a college degree and no job options in their field. We also end up with a different problem that we've created. We are now experience a real shortage of vocational and technical workers that do not need college degrees. There is a shortage of electricians, plumbers, HVAC techs, auto mechanics, chefs, medical technicians, and other jobs that require apprenticeship or vocational training.

We have created this problem where we are college training many people who shouldn't/wouldn't otherwise go to college and should otherwise get a skilled job without college or student loan debt. So we have unbalanced our work force and we end up with a lot of extra college educated students who are not working in "their field" and have debt, and we don't have enough students in vocational work.

We want to have those who are "book smart" to go to college. Those who will be towards the top of their field and will be good and productive workers in their field of study. We want others who are less "book smart" to go into fields where they can learn skills where they can excel and be productive.

[Anonymous]

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.

And all public universities should charge 5 times in-state rate for International students while keeping the 2-3 times for the OOS students. More money for the schools and more spots for in state and OOS students.

[Anonymous]

F-1 is NOT an immigrant visa.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree with this. Lots of these kids also come into athletic spots (so taking up both) and blocking out advancement of American kids at American schools on American teams. I'm not some isolationist, foreign-hating person but this ticks me off to no end. And my kid isn't even in college yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

States are free to to that.

So is the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would everyone agree with that? One of the benefits of college is being exposed to diverse viewpoints and backgrounds and international students have unique cultural, economic, political, and sociological perspectives that improve the experience and education for all students. Plus, international students sometimes stay in the US and make significant contributions to our country. There's no reason, other than xenophobia and counterproductive nationalistic protectionism, to put an artificial limit on their enrollment (especially when they are already full pay as you mentioned).

+1 My DD wanted to go to a LAC but a challenge with that college-style preference is that they are generally not very diverse, especially not compared to her HS. She ended up picking one that was the most diverse of the choices she ultimately had and most of that was because it's 10% international students.

[Anonymous]

Only 44% of US high school graduates enroll in 4-year colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

States are free to to that.

So is the federal government.

What university does the federal government run?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, OP, just no.

The problem in this country is that we have spent the last several decades telling kids that they have to go to college to get ahead. But we don't have enough white collar jobs for all of those college educated kids. So, we have encouraged a lot of kids who might otherwise consider other options and who are not as well suited for white collar positions to go to college. Then, being mediocre students and workers, they are the ones that end up with a college degree and no job options in their field. We also end up with a different problem that we've created. We are now experience a real shortage of vocational and technical workers that do not need college degrees. There is a shortage of electricians, plumbers, HVAC techs, auto mechanics, chefs, medical technicians, and other jobs that require apprenticeship or vocational training.

We have created this problem where we are college training many people who shouldn't/wouldn't otherwise go to college and should otherwise get a skilled job without college or student loan debt. So we have unbalanced our work force and we end up with a lot of extra college educated students who are not working in "their field" and have debt, and we don't have enough students in vocational work.

We want to have those who are "book smart" to go to college. Those who will be towards the top of their field and will be good and productive workers in their field of study. We want others who are less "book smart" to go into fields where they can learn skills where they can excel and be productive.

You are so arrogant.

Just come and try to do commercial HVAC work without being "book smart"

Let's see you write the documentation.

ZERO understanding of the real world.

[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.

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.

The percentage of internationals at most elite schools is 10-13%. That is very small. Oxbridge is 40-50%.

This is not on the common data sets but I hear tidbits that some schools have 30-40% international applicants, some much more. International students already have way tougher admission standards. Do we really need to reduce their number further? And, whether you like it or not, the international percentages are going up in a few years once the demographic cliff starts. Schools that have already upped them (looking at you, NYU) have less leeway on that front and will thereby go down in relative prestige.