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

[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:

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.

Nope, but that’s what you are saying.

[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.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

[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.

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.

It also benefits the US to give slots at elite institutions to domestic students of all racial and economic backgrounds. I’d ay that’s a higher priority than educating wealthy foreigners.

[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:

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.

Nope, but that’s what you are saying.

That’s exactly what you are saying thou. Your posts are filled with anti Asian resentment.

[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.

There would be a whole more slots if elite universities increased their size to that of top state universities or top international universities. They don't seem interested in expanding enrollment numbers though.

[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:

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.

Nope, but that’s what you are saying.

That’s exactly what you are saying thou. Your posts are filled with anti Asian resentment.

That’s your projection. I haven’t used the word Asian in a single one of my posts, so perhaps you are confusing me with another poster.

[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.

Nope dumb idea; here are a few reasons why:

Schools need the full pay students to lower COA for US students,
Percentages not as high as you claim at elite schools,
American students go abroad to study, do you want to create an International student trade war,
International students come in all types, so they bring diversity as well,
...

[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:

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.

There would be a whole more slots if elite universities increased their size to that of top state universities or top international universities. They don't seem interested in expanding enrollment numbers though.

That is a good idea but would cost billions. Limiting international students would be revenue neutral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It also benefits the US to give slots at elite institutions to domestic students of all racial and economic backgrounds. I’d ay that’s a higher priority than educating wealthy foreigners.

Says you. I don't agree. That is your first hurdle -- do people agree - -not at all sure they do. next hurdle is can you do anything about it and I doubt you can.

[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.

Nope dumb idea; here are a few reasons why:

Schools need the full pay students to lower COA for US students,
Percentages not as high as you claim at elite schools,
American students go abroad to study, do you want to create an International student trade war,
International students come in all types, so they bring diversity as well,
...

Plenty of full pay students that are domestic than could easily replace international students. Because there is no federal financial aid for international students and nearly all schools are need aware for international students, they are the opposite of Dover’s, nearly all are wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But we want everyone that will come here and contribute. Everyone

[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:

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.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

[Anonymous]

What if most of students are from Europe or Africa, would you feel the same way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But we want everyone that will come here and contribute. Everyone

You may, but the US immigration system is not set up that way, quite the opposite.

[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:

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.

There will never be enough spots at elite colleges to make everyone happy. If there were people wouldn't think they were elite! Scarcity is the point.

You may be a life long Democrat, but you no longer are one.

I don't even buy that.