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

[Anonymous]

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

Only the wealthy ones?

[Anonymous]

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.

A couple of points:

Sure Harvard can do it as could 10-15 other colleges -- what about the other thousands?

Sure they could spend their endowment that way -- but they don't want to -- that endowment is to last for a thousand years not spend it all now

[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.

+1

Hear! Hear!

Some people feel so entitled.

[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.

Are you also prepared to tell all other non profits how to live their lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only the wealthy ones?

+1

Not only "wealthy" and not only "international".

[Anonymous]

Canada offers international students a three year work visa after their degree to try and keep them. They must be valuable to Canada.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Although I value all perspectives, I do see merit to your post regarding federal research money benefiting non-citizens. I think that your concern should target graduate programs in science & technology, not undergraduate programs.

[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.

Are you also prepared to tell all other non profits how to live their lives?

I think that PP is ready to tell everybody how to live their lives. Kinda reminds me of little Hitler wannabee

[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.

It is not likely to be Constitutional if it is not directly tied to the purpose for the money ---- if money is for medical research you can't say bar international students. For Pell grants maybe you could but I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

When the Nobel prizes are announced each year, a large percentage of the winners are working for US universities. A significant number, however, were born elsewhere - Germany, France, India, Israel, Japan, UK etc. I guess they were international students.

[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: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.

Ok so you want diversity but only certain kinds of diversity. Is that what you are saying? Given most of international students are Asian, you are basically against more Asians on campus and, honestly, I don't think you care about international vs US born kids, Asians are Asians and you don't want to see them. Now we are getting to core of your thread.

[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.

Certain American Asians tend to want a very homogeneous university student body, across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Canada offers international students a three year work visa after their degree to try and keep them. They must be valuable to Canada.

Maybe read up on the immigration crises here. There is no shortage of people who want to immigrate to the US, and not just from south of the border.

[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.

Although I value all perspectives, I do see merit to your post regarding federal research money benefiting non-citizens. I think that your concern should target graduate programs in science & technology, not undergraduate programs.

Ok -- but a large chunk of those students stay in the US and become citizens. Another chunk goes home and it benefits the US to have US educated people in positions of authority. This is all good.