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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It funds nearly all of them, via research dollars, pell grants, etc . .

Of course, a university could opt out of accepting federal money if it felt accepting more than 5 percent International was necessary for its mission. Pretty sure nine would actually feel that way.

[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!!!

How do you know the pro-intl student posters are Asian Americans? Or are you just ASSuming?

This Asian agrees that intl students should be limited, and I bet many of my Asian friends/family feel the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It funds nearly all of them, via research dollars, pell grants, etc . .

Of course, a university could opt out of accepting federal money if it felt accepting more than 5 percent International was necessary for its mission. Pretty sure nine would actually feel that way.

Meant to type none not nine

[Anonymous]

I think the Feds should take over the funding and management of PUBLIC universities - get rid of Legacy programs and instate vs out of state tuition. This program handcuffs families as far as where they can live and saddles students seeking better opportunities with years of debt and makes us rely on outside funds.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is promised a slot at an "elite" school. There are plenty of US colleges with spots for both American and international students.

FWIW - most PhD programs are filled with foreign students - with just a sprinkle of Americans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

How do you know the pro-intl student posters are Asian Americans? Or are you just ASSuming?

This Asian agrees that intl students should be limited, and I bet many of my Asian friends/family feel the same.

PP is probably the person who's constantly confused between Asians Americans and Asian international students.
So dumb.

[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.

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

Numbers are from NCES:
from https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

Those numbers I believe are for the 2021-2022 academic year (international numbers at top schools were more impacted in 2020-2021).

Can’t speak to class of 2027 (and you can’t either, really, before waitlist is done and enrollment numbers are out in the fall), but if there is an actual one-year increase as you suggest, it may or may not be a one-off: there is a likely correlation between increased full-pay internationals and increased proportion of first-gen and URMs this year, as colleges knew it was their last year to increase URM enrollment before the decision.

In general, though, you should not use first year data because there are differing graduation rates for internationals…

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but I don’t agree. International students are human beings too. And you’re flat wrong in thinking they’re all rich and full pay. They’re not.

Your kid doesn’t have a friggin God given right to attend an elite college. Get over it.

They *are* all full pay. We don't give financial aid to foreign students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Feds should take over the funding and management of PUBLIC universities - get rid of Legacy programs and instate vs out of state tuition. This program handcuffs families as far as where they can live and saddles students seeking better opportunities with years of debt and makes us rely on outside funds.

Related to this: my DH has said for years that the entire concept of states is dumb and actually looks really provincial (literally!) and stupid to anyone who has lived in countries in that don't have this kind of separation. I never really listened to him until I started thinking about it with regards to state universities.

The concept of state universities run by state governments and that give preference to in-state students with lower tuition and preferential admissions is extremely weird in the year 2023. I mean, in 1940 it might have made sense because the population was much less mobile. But in this day and age it makes no sense at all. State lines are arbitrary, many metropolitan areas span one or more state borders, some states are so large that the biggest state universities will be further away from many students than state universities in one or more other states. Like even from a geographic standpoint, state university systems are weird. And when you consider how much of university funding is actually federal, and then consider on top of that how much of tuition each year is actually funded by federal loans, it becomes even more non-sensical.

I mean, nothing is going to change any time soon, federalism is hear to stay in the US and this aspect of it is deeply engrained. But the idea that quality, cost, and accessibility of higher education in this country is hugely dependent on which side of an imaginary line your parents happen to live is pretty weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but I don’t agree. International students are human beings too. And you’re flat wrong in thinking they’re all rich and full pay. They’re not.

Your kid doesn’t have a friggin God given right to attend an elite college. Get over it.

They *are* all full pay. We don't give financial aid to foreign students.

Not federal financial aid but private colleges are free to do whatever they want with their money.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Make it happen!! LOL. What an idiot.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Wealthy international students also go back to their countries to make weapons and businesses that hurt the USA.