Int. students may need to leave US if classes are 100% Remote(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
Int. students may need to leave US if classes are 100% Remote
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/international-college-students-ice-online-learning/index.html
230 comments
@dang - Flagging as [dupe] shouldn't remove an article from the HN front page, especially when none of the other articles are actively on the front page.
Also, all [dupe] article comments should be merged and visible under each separate [dupe] article, so organic user dialogue isn't split up and minimized.
Also, all [dupe] article comments should be merged and visible under each separate [dupe] article, so organic user dialogue isn't split up and minimized.
Front page space is the scarcest resource on HN [1]. If we didn't remove dupes, the site would be Dupes R Us. Also, since the idea of HN is to avoid repetition [2], there wouldn't be anyone left here because readers would mutiny.
We commonly merge duplicate threads, but we don't catch them all. In the case of a sensational story like this one, where there's an endless supply of comments and the threads are more or less interchangeable, it's perhaps less important.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
We commonly merge duplicate threads, but we don't catch them all. In the case of a sensational story like this one, where there's an endless supply of comments and the threads are more or less interchangeable, it's perhaps less important.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Wow! no sign of this or any other thread from the front page..
[deleted]
This is just another step in a broad-based program to make sure as few highly qualified people as possible can come to learn and work in the US.
(1) F1 visas have been effectively banned in much of the world since COVID started - the required interviews could only be done in now-closed centers. (2) H1B, L1, H4, and J1 visas have been suspended until the end of the year, leaving OPT transfers, H1B lottery winners (already a 1 in 3 shot), H1B transfers, and others in the lurch. (3) RFEs (a first step to visa denials) have been on a steep rise.
As a result, not only are we kicking people out, but international applications to US schools have absolutely collapsed; fewer people are even trying. The US is actively abandoning its goal of being the land of opportunity, and it makes me sad.
(1) F1 visas have been effectively banned in much of the world since COVID started - the required interviews could only be done in now-closed centers. (2) H1B, L1, H4, and J1 visas have been suspended until the end of the year, leaving OPT transfers, H1B lottery winners (already a 1 in 3 shot), H1B transfers, and others in the lurch. (3) RFEs (a first step to visa denials) have been on a steep rise.
As a result, not only are we kicking people out, but international applications to US schools have absolutely collapsed; fewer people are even trying. The US is actively abandoning its goal of being the land of opportunity, and it makes me sad.
It's another measurable, negative impact of the America First philosophy [1].
40% of the Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrant families [2][3], so the U.S. is really shooting itself in the foot (again).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)
[2] F500 2010: http://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/20... (pdf)
[3] F500 2017: https://startupsusa.org/fortune500/
40% of the Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrant families [2][3], so the U.S. is really shooting itself in the foot (again).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)
[2] F500 2010: http://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/20... (pdf)
[3] F500 2017: https://startupsusa.org/fortune500/
It really should be called "America Alone."
A real America-first policy would encourage and fight for high skill immigration, since that builds the economy of the US and depletes talent from other countries.
A real America-first policy would encourage and fight for high skill immigration, since that builds the economy of the US and depletes talent from other countries.
This 40% stat gets pushed all the time with no context. The way it sounds is that super immigrants are starting these companies. But the way the study is, a 5 person founding team could have 1 person who was son/daughter of immigrant and then it is counted.
Lots of valuable brains are outside the country, but doesn't mean we should traffic in somewhat misleading statistics.
Lots of valuable brains are outside the country, but doesn't mean we should traffic in somewhat misleading statistics.
How is that misleading?
To be clear I have no skin in the game (not from the US), but if the GP's claims are true, then I was misled because I did think that the 40% that gets thrown around was founded only by immigrants.
Does it change my view on immigration? Of course not, but it does indicate that if immigration was stopped entirely then it is not true to say that that 40% slice of fortune 500 companies would simply never have been founded.
Does it change my view on immigration? Of course not, but it does indicate that if immigration was stopped entirely then it is not true to say that that 40% slice of fortune 500 companies would simply never have been founded.
Well... 40% of the Fortune 500 had at least one founder that was from an immigrant family. I think that's the precise statement, but I might misunderstand.
That is not the same as saying that 40% of the founders of Fortune 500 companies were immigrants (which I believe is bruceb's point).
To your point: Let's say there were 5 founders. Let's say one was an immigrant. Would the company still have been founded by the other 4, if the immigrant were not there? That's unknown, but one would expect that at least some of the time the answer is "no". Or if it were founded, would it have grown as large as it did? Again, unknown, but in at least some cases the answer is probably "no".
To argue otherwise is to say that founders are replaceable parts - that they have nothing unique to add. That seems... questionable.
That is not the same as saying that 40% of the founders of Fortune 500 companies were immigrants (which I believe is bruceb's point).
To your point: Let's say there were 5 founders. Let's say one was an immigrant. Would the company still have been founded by the other 4, if the immigrant were not there? That's unknown, but one would expect that at least some of the time the answer is "no". Or if it were founded, would it have grown as large as it did? Again, unknown, but in at least some cases the answer is probably "no".
To argue otherwise is to say that founders are replaceable parts - that they have nothing unique to add. That seems... questionable.
I think you are building a straw man from my comment instead of addressing the actual claim, my point is absolutely not about questioning whether the co-founders were relevant to the companies success.
My comment should be read as: I have seen the 40% figure given very often on HN and I did interpret it as 40% of Fortune 500 companies being founded only by first-generation immigrants.
To me someone who was born in a country and has citizenship in that particular country is not an immigrant.
My comment should be read as: I have seen the 40% figure given very often on HN and I did interpret it as 40% of Fortune 500 companies being founded only by first-generation immigrants.
To me someone who was born in a country and has citizenship in that particular country is not an immigrant.
If that was a strawman, it was unintentional.
But, to your actual point (I hope): I'm inclined to agree with your definition of immigrants. And yet, if we didn't accept the parents, we wouldn't have the children either.
The problem with that argument is, where do you draw the line? One generation? Two? A few decades? A few centuries? If you follow that argument too far, only businesses founded by Native Americans weren't founded by families of immigrants.
I think that categorizing people as immigrants, (first generation) children of immigrants, and non-immigrants makes sense for this discussion. And if "founded by families of immigrants" means first-generation children, that's still to some degree an argument that we want immigrants because of the effect they have on the economy. Not as direct an argument as if they were founded by immigrants, but still something of an argument.
But, to your actual point (I hope): I'm inclined to agree with your definition of immigrants. And yet, if we didn't accept the parents, we wouldn't have the children either.
The problem with that argument is, where do you draw the line? One generation? Two? A few decades? A few centuries? If you follow that argument too far, only businesses founded by Native Americans weren't founded by families of immigrants.
I think that categorizing people as immigrants, (first generation) children of immigrants, and non-immigrants makes sense for this discussion. And if "founded by families of immigrants" means first-generation children, that's still to some degree an argument that we want immigrants because of the effect they have on the economy. Not as direct an argument as if they were founded by immigrants, but still something of an argument.
I mean if somebody told you "40% of fortune 500 companies are founded by first generation immigrants" that wasn't true, but I've never heard that, and I can't immediately find an article that says that.
The claim as stated here, "40% of the Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrant families", is very straightforward.
The claim as stated here, "40% of the Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrant families", is very straightforward.
BS.
What is the image that comes to mind with: "40% of the Fortune 500 companies are founded by immigrant families"
Sounds like they were solely responsible for creating this company.
Now a more precise statement: 40% of Fortune 500 companies had at least one immigrant or American with at least 1 immigrant parent on found team. Changes the image in one's mind a lot. Why not actually be straightforward instead of misleading?
Now a more precise statement: 40% of Fortune 500 companies had at least one immigrant or American with at least 1 immigrant parent on found team. Changes the image in one's mind a lot. Why not actually be straightforward instead of misleading?
I guess it would be better to change "founded" to "founded or cofounded".
Your formulation is fine too, although immigrants are Americans, so I don't love that distinction. Regardless, these all conjure up the same idea for me. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't even see much difference between founder and cofounder. Typically if someone is called a cofounder then the business probably wouldn't exist without them.
To settle the argument, why don't we agree to stick with this sentence from the original study: "43 percent of these companies were founded or co-founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant."
Your formulation is fine too, although immigrants are Americans, so I don't love that distinction. Regardless, these all conjure up the same idea for me. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't even see much difference between founder and cofounder. Typically if someone is called a cofounder then the business probably wouldn't exist without them.
To settle the argument, why don't we agree to stick with this sentence from the original study: "43 percent of these companies were founded or co-founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant."
I don’t agree with the overall point but there is an implication in the use of the stat that the business would not have started if not for that 1 out of 5 founder.
Alternatively, that role would have been filled By someone else.
Alternatively, that role would have been filled By someone else.
>Alternatively, that role would have been filled By someone else.
If your hypothesis were true, then the rate of Fortune 500 companies being founded by immigrant families (40%) would be representative of the % of immigrant families in the U.S. population (24%), which it's not.
If your hypothesis were true, then the rate of Fortune 500 companies being founded by immigrant families (40%) would be representative of the % of immigrant families in the U.S. population (24%), which it's not.
No, The ops point is if you include cofounding, the percentage should be higher than the population rate.
Made up numbers follow. If the average number of Cofounders was 4, at 25% population rate the number would be around 66% immigrant founded by that stat.
Made up numbers follow. If the average number of Cofounders was 4, at 25% population rate the number would be around 66% immigrant founded by that stat.
I don't understand what you mean. How would the role be filled? They invented the role, that's the point of founding something. They didn't apply to a job posting for the position of "founder" that somebody else could have applied to.
Say you have a CTO, Salesman and CEO founding and one is an immigrant, it is possible the other two would have filled that role with someone else.
Anything is possible, but the term "cofounder" is not usually thrown around lightly. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any cofounder willing to say they could have started their business without one or more of their fellow cofounders.
I think the reason you're getting down-modded is that the accepted way to challenge this kind of baseless statistic is "do you have a source for your 40% number?". Thanks for calling out this 40% number, I had just glanced over it and accepted it until you challenged it.
A players hire A players, B players hire C players.
If ability is normally distributed, and immigration is a filter for A players, their descendants will regress to the mean to become B players. B players want their C player American kids to have jobs over the A player non-American immigrant. America first.
If ability is normally distributed, and immigration is a filter for A players, their descendants will regress to the mean to become B players. B players want their C player American kids to have jobs over the A player non-American immigrant. America first.
Being an immigrant is not virtuous in and of itself. How many of those 40% 'immigrant families' immigrated here poor and climbed the economic ladder, and how many took stolen wealth from a feudal system in the old country and built a business?
Instead of investing in our domestic population with job training and scholarships, corporations are importing labor from overseas. Those people getting imported have degrees (sometimes of dubious quality) paid for by socialist states, often work for 'staffing agencies' to circumvent benefits and PTO of the real company, have very little job mobility, are most often paid below-market rates.
It's basic economics. More labor means cheaper labor.
Why are Blacks and Hispanics underrepresented in Software development [1]? If you compare the overall employment figures to the overall demographics of the country, they're almost identical, but way, way off for software development. It's because the most vulnerable people in the US don't have access to jobs and education, and corporations have no incentive to train entry level workers when they can just import them.
> so the U.S. is really shooting itself in the foot (again).
In what manner? The US doesn't need every genius walking on planet earth to reside in the US.
EDIT: reference
1: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
Instead of investing in our domestic population with job training and scholarships, corporations are importing labor from overseas. Those people getting imported have degrees (sometimes of dubious quality) paid for by socialist states, often work for 'staffing agencies' to circumvent benefits and PTO of the real company, have very little job mobility, are most often paid below-market rates.
It's basic economics. More labor means cheaper labor.
Why are Blacks and Hispanics underrepresented in Software development [1]? If you compare the overall employment figures to the overall demographics of the country, they're almost identical, but way, way off for software development. It's because the most vulnerable people in the US don't have access to jobs and education, and corporations have no incentive to train entry level workers when they can just import them.
> so the U.S. is really shooting itself in the foot (again).
In what manner? The US doesn't need every genius walking on planet earth to reside in the US.
EDIT: reference
1: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
>More labor means cheaper labor.
This is the lump of labour fallacy[0], and is erroneously used to argue against immigration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
This is the lump of labour fallacy[0], and is erroneously used to argue against immigration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
> More labor means cheaper labor.
The US population has grown from ~150 million in 1950 to ~350 million now.
The US population has grown from ~150 million in 1950 to ~350 million now.
Interesting. Describe real wage growth over that time period.
If you think the average wage in 1950 can get you more stuff than 2020, educate me then.
The only thing that got more expensive relatively speaking is housing. Which kind of make sense because land area don't tend to change.
Look around at your house and answer if you could get the same stuff (or even, poor replacement of the same stuff) if you're at the same percentile of income in 1950s.
The only thing that got more expensive relatively speaking is housing. Which kind of make sense because land area don't tend to change.
Look around at your house and answer if you could get the same stuff (or even, poor replacement of the same stuff) if you're at the same percentile of income in 1950s.
There are more 'things' as a function of decreased costs of production, including, get this, importing lots of cheap goods from overseas.
1950 to 2020 looks good on paper, until you realize that the bulk of the wage growth happened prior to 1990. Since 1990, the S&P 500 has gone up approximately 10x. Meanwhile, wages have approximately doubled. That means in the last 30 years, the wealth gap has increased. If you consider only minorities, the picture is even worse.
It's almost like, US workers are losing their bargaining power for some reason. If you consider outsourcing, various trade agreements, and white collar immigration, those are all net-negative on US labor. Some demographics have been disproportionately impacted than others, just as predicted.
1950 to 2020 looks good on paper, until you realize that the bulk of the wage growth happened prior to 1990. Since 1990, the S&P 500 has gone up approximately 10x. Meanwhile, wages have approximately doubled. That means in the last 30 years, the wealth gap has increased. If you consider only minorities, the picture is even worse.
It's almost like, US workers are losing their bargaining power for some reason. If you consider outsourcing, various trade agreements, and white collar immigration, those are all net-negative on US labor. Some demographics have been disproportionately impacted than others, just as predicted.
America first is a great policy. Our people need jobs and our policies should reflect that.
I don't think the America First folks realize how damaging these trump policies are to america.
The brain drain effect is almost always linked to poor economic performance. And the rules are so ham fisted now. Bipartisan H1B reform goes nowhere (prioritize US masters degrees, block H1B dependent employers from more H1Bs etc). Stupid stuff is everywhere.
Immigrants bringing in revenue (plenty) support US jobs in the US.
It's going to be a rude shock to the less skilled american worker to find a lot of jobs going remote overseas (Canada even) and their middle management / entry level office jobs vanishing.
This historic effect here, where another country educates someone, and then they come to the US, is INSANELY profitable for the US. Seriously, in a ruthless way folks who are not successful in school, have health issues, have criminal backgrounds, are disabled etc don't come in on these visas.
Instead its ambitious folks ANOTHER COUNTRY has invested a lot into coming to the US. How does that hurt the US?
This has always been a huge advantage the US has had. Crazy to see the US throwing it away.
The brain drain effect is almost always linked to poor economic performance. And the rules are so ham fisted now. Bipartisan H1B reform goes nowhere (prioritize US masters degrees, block H1B dependent employers from more H1Bs etc). Stupid stuff is everywhere.
Immigrants bringing in revenue (plenty) support US jobs in the US.
It's going to be a rude shock to the less skilled american worker to find a lot of jobs going remote overseas (Canada even) and their middle management / entry level office jobs vanishing.
This historic effect here, where another country educates someone, and then they come to the US, is INSANELY profitable for the US. Seriously, in a ruthless way folks who are not successful in school, have health issues, have criminal backgrounds, are disabled etc don't come in on these visas.
Instead its ambitious folks ANOTHER COUNTRY has invested a lot into coming to the US. How does that hurt the US?
This has always been a huge advantage the US has had. Crazy to see the US throwing it away.
Currently people with a Computer Science degree have ~95% employment during the worst economic downturn of my lifetime. I don't need goverment protection for my job. In order to be more competitive my company needs more workers with Computer Science degrees. Reducing the supply of computer science degree holders actually hurts my long term career prospects by reducing the international competitiveness of the type of business that would hire me.
No kidding, the US is gobbling up the worlds wealth through tech. The stupidity of throwing this away is monumental.
Immigrants create economic growth though. They come here, spend money, start businesses, and generate more demand for the things that create jobs.
In fact, preventing immigration reduces jobs. Companies will happily offshore any position they can.
Jobs don't just exist in a vacuum. They're the result of a relatively complex economy, but growth generally creates jobs. So we should grow.
In fact, preventing immigration reduces jobs. Companies will happily offshore any position they can.
Jobs don't just exist in a vacuum. They're the result of a relatively complex economy, but growth generally creates jobs. So we should grow.
It's a false dichotomy rooted in isolationism and justified by xenophobia. It takes care of Americans in name only.
Our policies should reflect that our people also includes immigrants and that we are strongest when the definition of american is == "the best and the brightest from around the world".
[deleted]
Weren't these visas supposed to be for bringing talented individuals with expertise deemed to be missing in the US? Was the visa system ever 'just' for bringing 'highly qualified' individuals? If America wants highly qualified individuals, it seems to me that 'nurturing' that talent is more important.
Bringing in uniquely talented individuals who can distribute expert knowledge accomplishes that.
Bringing an IT worker who does a good JAVA/.Net programming does not accomplish that... right?
Bringing in uniquely talented individuals who can distribute expert knowledge accomplishes that.
Bringing an IT worker who does a good JAVA/.Net programming does not accomplish that... right?
[deleted]
Agreed
Bringing in raw talent and nurturing them here has been successful for USA. That is the student visa route.. I think you are referring to H1B?
Right, but the visas are not being exclusively used for IT workers. Instead of weeding out abuse all current policies seem to be to just blindly make immigration harder. Making it harder for all specialized fields to hire the folks they need doesn't help anyone. The administration is just pandering to it's anti immigrant base instead of solving hard problems.
Yeah, this whole idea seems a little misunderstood.
Here's some of the high-level effects of bringing international talent of all sorts to the US of year:
1) more talent in the US
2) less talent in other nations
3) the US can ignore pre-university education and opportunity problems
1 and 2 are great for the US government and the top of the US economy, but bad for pretty much everybody else.
3 is pretty awful for a huge number of actual US citizens. Especially given the current state of our nation, this seems like a problem.
I don't believe in "talent". It's all about nurture. If you need more talented people in huge fields for generations, yet half of your nation doesn't have college degrees, the problem is that you are not investing in your people successfully. If we invested more in education and resources for kids, parents, and families from before conception through early childhood and education, we would not have a shortage for fields like... computer science and engineering. These aren't fields that just popped up, they've been a big deal for a century.
Here's some of the high-level effects of bringing international talent of all sorts to the US of year:
1) more talent in the US
2) less talent in other nations
3) the US can ignore pre-university education and opportunity problems
1 and 2 are great for the US government and the top of the US economy, but bad for pretty much everybody else.
3 is pretty awful for a huge number of actual US citizens. Especially given the current state of our nation, this seems like a problem.
I don't believe in "talent". It's all about nurture. If you need more talented people in huge fields for generations, yet half of your nation doesn't have college degrees, the problem is that you are not investing in your people successfully. If we invested more in education and resources for kids, parents, and families from before conception through early childhood and education, we would not have a shortage for fields like... computer science and engineering. These aren't fields that just popped up, they've been a big deal for a century.
This. This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through these threads. Logged in just to upvote, but might as well say: "Thanks for being out there my thought-doppelganger!"
Minor nit: I believe H1B transfers for people already in the country are still being processed. But your broader point of the US government actively preventing global talent from entering the country stands. Very sad indeed.
> The US is actively abandoning its goal of being the land of opportunity, and it makes me sad.
Yes - this is active, but not irrational, because this is a reversion to mercantilism of the earlier centuries (it is not a conservative position, but a regressive one).
The only people welcome to this country are "growing things in the ground".
Because if the only thing that you consider to be productive is farming (as in production == farming), then the whole social requirements of education, research or specialization is irrelevant. And in fact, those people are a drain on the food security and profitability of the extractive industry of farming.
Maybe because it is fresh, I was struck by a bit of the lyrics from Hamilton as being a direct reference to this thought that the rest of America is just "moving money around" in the service industries (even the industry, where every stage is just making something from somebody else's raw material, till you get to the Appalachian coal mines).
Yes - this is active, but not irrational, because this is a reversion to mercantilism of the earlier centuries (it is not a conservative position, but a regressive one).
The only people welcome to this country are "growing things in the ground".
Because if the only thing that you consider to be productive is farming (as in production == farming), then the whole social requirements of education, research or specialization is irrelevant. And in fact, those people are a drain on the food security and profitability of the extractive industry of farming.
Maybe because it is fresh, I was struck by a bit of the lyrics from Hamilton as being a direct reference to this thought that the rest of America is just "moving money around" in the service industries (even the industry, where every stage is just making something from somebody else's raw material, till you get to the Appalachian coal mines).
Don't tax the South 'cause we got it made in the shade /
In Virginia, we plant seeds in the ground /
We create, you just wanna move our money around /
This financial plan is an outrageous demandVote.
Unfortunately, Democrats don't have a great track record of passing pro skilled immigration bills either. In 2009-2010, when Democrats controlled the house and the senate as well as the presidency, they didn't bring in a single major immigration reform bill [1]. The DREAM act for childhood arrivals didn't pass the senate, and DACA was later passed through executive order in 2012. And right now some Democrats continue to oppose skilled immigration claiming that it is "racist" [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#M...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/22/trump-wan...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#M...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/22/trump-wan...
The immigration debate looked very different ten years ago. I’m not sure we should expect the same policies.
> (1) F1 visas have been effectively banned in much of the world since COVID started - the required interviews could only be done in now-closed centers.
Wouldn't lock-downs have resulted in the consulates being required to close in much of the world?
And how much reciprocity is there? Are Americans even allowed to travel to most of the world today? There are stories about schools in places like UK having to charter planes to bring students since it's impossible to get there otherwise. Making this all into a narrative about xenophobic americans seems near-sighted.
Wouldn't lock-downs have resulted in the consulates being required to close in much of the world?
And how much reciprocity is there? Are Americans even allowed to travel to most of the world today? There are stories about schools in places like UK having to charter planes to bring students since it's impossible to get there otherwise. Making this all into a narrative about xenophobic americans seems near-sighted.
How much of this is due to existing Trump administration policies, and how much due to COVID?
[deleted]
But don't worry though, lots of jobs and prosperity in the coal industry. /s
The US allows over 1 million immigrants per year. Maybe less the past year, but still extremely high on an immigrant per capita basis.
H1B was being abused and needed to be reigned in.
There are still plenty of people coming into the country through various means, the US is still extremely generous with immigration.
There are plenty of qualified citizens here and in the zero sum game that is hiring national immigration policy should put their needs first before anyone else's.
H1B was being abused and needed to be reigned in.
There are still plenty of people coming into the country through various means, the US is still extremely generous with immigration.
There are plenty of qualified citizens here and in the zero sum game that is hiring national immigration policy should put their needs first before anyone else's.
>the US is still extremely generous with immigration.
Everything I read about it convinces me it's a byzantine and capricious process, and largely down to chance.
My process of gaining permanent residence in the Netherlands is a cakewalk by comparison. University MSc, then free access to the job market for a year, then after some years of employment and passing a relatively simple integration exam, I have long-term European residence. At no point was this up to the arbitrary whims of some immigration officer or a far-fetched lottery chance.
To me the idea that immigration is zero sum is repugnant and wrong.
Everything I read about it convinces me it's a byzantine and capricious process, and largely down to chance.
My process of gaining permanent residence in the Netherlands is a cakewalk by comparison. University MSc, then free access to the job market for a year, then after some years of employment and passing a relatively simple integration exam, I have long-term European residence. At no point was this up to the arbitrary whims of some immigration officer or a far-fetched lottery chance.
To me the idea that immigration is zero sum is repugnant and wrong.
There are hundreds of millions of people who want to come into the US each year. It's inevitably going to be a difficult process.
Probably wasn’t as expensive either. My buddy had to spend roughly $6k to become a citizen. Absolutely ludicrous.
> the US is still extremely generous with immigration.
US is the WORST country on earth for immigration. I came to US >10 years ago, still NOWHERE near getting a Green Card. Will probably won't get well into my 30s or 40s. It's practically impossible to get it in the next 5 years.
The same time I started undergrad in US, my friend started undergrad in Germany. He was already a German citizen by the time we were working. I was still on F visa. This was like half a decade ago.
My biggest regret EVER was doing this in the US. If I got a PhD in Europe instead of US, I wouldn't be a person who doesn't have a country.
I understand that American people don't want immigrants. But let's not pretend immigration into US is easy. I've been trying my entire life to live here without getting kicked out and it's pure luck. One mistake and you need to wrap your entire life, leave loved ones and go back home. Again, I'm NOT saying I'm entitled to living in the US, I'm saying this is an extremely long, and complex process.
US is the WORST country on earth for immigration. I came to US >10 years ago, still NOWHERE near getting a Green Card. Will probably won't get well into my 30s or 40s. It's practically impossible to get it in the next 5 years.
The same time I started undergrad in US, my friend started undergrad in Germany. He was already a German citizen by the time we were working. I was still on F visa. This was like half a decade ago.
My biggest regret EVER was doing this in the US. If I got a PhD in Europe instead of US, I wouldn't be a person who doesn't have a country.
I understand that American people don't want immigrants. But let's not pretend immigration into US is easy. I've been trying my entire life to live here without getting kicked out and it's pure luck. One mistake and you need to wrap your entire life, leave loved ones and go back home. Again, I'm NOT saying I'm entitled to living in the US, I'm saying this is an extremely long, and complex process.
Could the waiting be attributed to your country of citizenship? I know there's a long wait for citizens of a few countries because there are per-country limits on green cards.
Nope, I'm not from China or India (so I'm in the global pool). If you're from India, it's impossible to get citizenship this way (the waitlist is too long), you need to marry a US citizen if you want citizenship.
+1 to what you said. 18 years for me and no permanent residency in sight. I'd have been a citizen a few times over in any other country.
That's horrible. I have several friends from different origin countries (including USA) who have received Swiss citizenships (which the American right wing holds up as some sort of uber-restrictive standard) in half that time.
The time to naturalize in Switzerland is now 10 years (it used to be a bit longer) unless married to a Swiss citizen, in which case it's shorter. Include that plus the processing time and assuming your friends were in one of the right residence status categories during their entire time in Switzerland, it would have taken them at least 11 years or so.
> There are plenty of qualified citizens here and in the zero sum game that is hiring national immigration policy should put their needs first before anyone else's.
This exact sort of anti-competitive nationalism has been tried before, and over and over again it has been abandoned. It's a failed policy that gives other countries a competitive advantage over your own.
It's better to learn from others' mistakes than to repeat them yourself.
This exact sort of anti-competitive nationalism has been tried before, and over and over again it has been abandoned. It's a failed policy that gives other countries a competitive advantage over your own.
It's better to learn from others' mistakes than to repeat them yourself.
Could you point out those various means to me? Forgive me if that sounds rhetorical, but I'm serious - it would be life changing for some close friends. I only ask because as far as I'm aware, the only available option right now is marriage.
> H1B was being abused and needed to be reigned in.
Nothing has been reigned in. H1B quota got full early on this year and H1bs were allotted through a lottery of qualified candidates. Transfers are still being allowed. If your argument is that H1B gets abused then right way is to pass a reasonable bill and not blanket ban everything.
Yet again, F1 visa already prohibit students a 100% online school from entering the country. So your impression of immigration being "reigned in" is pretty misguided.
Nothing has been reigned in. H1B quota got full early on this year and H1bs were allotted through a lottery of qualified candidates. Transfers are still being allowed. If your argument is that H1B gets abused then right way is to pass a reasonable bill and not blanket ban everything.
Yet again, F1 visa already prohibit students a 100% online school from entering the country. So your impression of immigration being "reigned in" is pretty misguided.
It's important to realize that most of immigration (i.e., green cards) is family based (with marriage being first) and not employment based.
On what planet is the US’s immigration policy “extremely generous”? Have you experienced it? The costs and hoops and sheer years it takes?
And yet despite bi-partisan legislation to reform H1B we get this stupidity.
It's going to be good to vote this cycle.
It's going to be good to vote this cycle.
Agreed
H1B abuse doesn't exist. It's made up. You multiply the quota by 100x and it wouldn't exist as a concept, same as J1 nanny visas being abused doesn't exist.
It does exist, but would be easy to fix.
The fix is the problem.
Even if you are anti-immigration, your biggest issue should be tourist visas which is how illegal immigrants stay in the US, and those are unlimited and in the millions. H1B quotas are stupid by design.
Even if you are anti-immigration, your biggest issue should be tourist visas which is how illegal immigrants stay in the US, and those are unlimited and in the millions. H1B quotas are stupid by design.
Or, maybe American’s have grown tired of educating state sponsored (China) students whose sponsors quite literally seek to exfiltrate knowledge from U.S. academia and industry. Do you think I as an American would be welcome to attend a Chinese university 100% remotely? Do you think China would allow any American to attend a program in China that could help the U.S. build a competitive or defensive advantage?
Original press release is https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/sevp-modifies-temporary-ex...
Key fact:
- International student cannot legally attend a 100% online school from the US (with an F or M status).
- International student in school with "Hybrid" models (some in person, some online) cannot have a 100% "online semester". The school will need to certify that the student is not taking 100% online classes.
- If a Hybrid school moves to a fully online halfway through, the student needs to depart the US (or transfer to another school)
This only applies for the student to be legally _within_ the US of course.
EDIT: The law already prevented this, basically. Spring and Summer had special exemptions granted by DHS. So this is just a reversal to the "usual policy", which it seems many school expected would not happen (at least not that quickly). My university is scrambling to understand the exact consequences.
Key fact:
- International student cannot legally attend a 100% online school from the US (with an F or M status).
- International student in school with "Hybrid" models (some in person, some online) cannot have a 100% "online semester". The school will need to certify that the student is not taking 100% online classes.
- If a Hybrid school moves to a fully online halfway through, the student needs to depart the US (or transfer to another school)
This only applies for the student to be legally _within_ the US of course.
EDIT: The law already prevented this, basically. Spring and Summer had special exemptions granted by DHS. So this is just a reversal to the "usual policy", which it seems many school expected would not happen (at least not that quickly). My university is scrambling to understand the exact consequences.
Key quote:
>” Visa requirements for students have always been strict and coming to the US to take online-only courses has been prohibited.”
So it’s a reinforcement of policy rather than change although some institutions would like to see accommodation for this kind of circumstance —which is understandable if students came here with the intent to attend in person, but it’s worth noting the the visa requirements have not changed
>” Visa requirements for students have always been strict and coming to the US to take online-only courses has been prohibited.”
So it’s a reinforcement of policy rather than change although some institutions would like to see accommodation for this kind of circumstance —which is understandable if students came here with the intent to attend in person, but it’s worth noting the the visa requirements have not changed
That requirement was waived this spring. They're unwaiving it.[0]
Rigid enforcement of rules designed for a world that doesn't exist anymore, and won't for a while, is a deliberate choice and not one that we have to make.
The pandemic is an ongoing rolling emergency. Making life worse for people for no good reason may be the default, but that doesn't mean that the people who can waive the rule shouldn't be held responsible when they decide not to. Inaction and action are nearly indistinguishable from the side of the people being affected.
[0] See this guidance from March: "Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 emergency, SEVP will allow F-1 and/or M-1 students to temporarily count online classes towards a full course of study in excess of the limits... This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency" Absolutely nothing substantive has changed since then, but ICE has apparently changed its mind and- implausibly- decided the emergency is over. It's absurd.
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2...
Rigid enforcement of rules designed for a world that doesn't exist anymore, and won't for a while, is a deliberate choice and not one that we have to make.
The pandemic is an ongoing rolling emergency. Making life worse for people for no good reason may be the default, but that doesn't mean that the people who can waive the rule shouldn't be held responsible when they decide not to. Inaction and action are nearly indistinguishable from the side of the people being affected.
[0] See this guidance from March: "Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 emergency, SEVP will allow F-1 and/or M-1 students to temporarily count online classes towards a full course of study in excess of the limits... This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency" Absolutely nothing substantive has changed since then, but ICE has apparently changed its mind and- implausibly- decided the emergency is over. It's absurd.
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2...
The university i'm associated with, because of the pandemic, not only all the international students are having online classes, but the international grad students teaching the classes are giving them online too.
And all those grad students on a teaching scholarship were told to remain in the US because their scholarship is tied to being residents of the State for some tax reason or another for the institution.
fun times.
And all those grad students on a teaching scholarship were told to remain in the US because their scholarship is tied to being residents of the State for some tax reason or another for the institution.
fun times.
Couldn't they offer a required in-class portion of their degree (INT 5001: "Let's Talk about COVID and being international students for 20 minutes") for all international students where completion is required for their degree but attendance is optional? Effectively, no one physically goes to the class, but it's enough to keep students in the US because it's not an online-only class.
I don’t know if that would work. The whole reason for the on-site requirement is to avoid or clamp down on Visa scams. And a loophole like that is exactly what a scam school would do.
It wouldn't, and if you tried, you'd end up with this all over again:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-fake-u...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-fake-u...
ICE generally is not fond of people circumventing the rules. You'd basically be taking your students' tuition and then rolling the dice to see how badly they get punished by ICE, possibly including imprisonment, deportation, and a lifetime ban from the US.
The regulations are written so as to exclude the possibility[0]. I wouldn't play chicken with ICE. Get this wrong, and you can be held in immigration detention until ICE can convince your home country to let them deport you back[1], which may be a while considering countries have been travel-banning the US on public health grounds.
[0] "For F-1 students enrolled in classes for credit or classroom hours, no more than the equivalent of one class or three credits per session, term, semester, trimester, or quarter may be counted toward the full course of study requirement if the class is taken on-line or through distance education and does not require the student's physical attendance for classes, examination or other purposes integral to completion of the class." https://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/amresource/8cfr2142f.htm
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-fake-u...
[0] "For F-1 students enrolled in classes for credit or classroom hours, no more than the equivalent of one class or three credits per session, term, semester, trimester, or quarter may be counted toward the full course of study requirement if the class is taken on-line or through distance education and does not require the student's physical attendance for classes, examination or other purposes integral to completion of the class." https://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/amresource/8cfr2142f.htm
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ice-fake-u...
The regulations will be updated (new regs will be in the Federal Register as a Temporary Final Rule) and the limit of one class / three credits will be lifted for students attending universities following a hybrid model.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/sevp-modifies-temporary-ex...
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/sevp-modifies-temporary-ex...
Foreign students can only take 1 online class at our institution due to current policy. When we scrambled to move all online during the stay-home orders, one question we didn't have answered was whether or not those students could even stay if we went entirely online.
The policy didn't change at all, it's super restrictive.
What institutions I'm affiliated with are asking is for temporary flexibility during COVID-19. Specific start and end dates based on periodic review of health measures.
And the answer is still a resounding 'no' from any sort of federal representative we can get in touch with.
This, honestly, feels like the federal immigration department is trying to punish schools who are more cautious about opening up like nothing is happening. It tastes bad.
edit: edited to reflect the inaccuracy as pointed out by PeterisP. SEVIS is overseen by ICE, not the department of education. Our representatives for SEVIS are generally connected to the DoE in some fashion. I didn't realize folks wouldn't know that ICE oversees immigrants, and that the Ed Department isn't responsible for making this policy.
The policy didn't change at all, it's super restrictive.
What institutions I'm affiliated with are asking is for temporary flexibility during COVID-19. Specific start and end dates based on periodic review of health measures.
And the answer is still a resounding 'no' from any sort of federal representative we can get in touch with.
This, honestly, feels like the federal immigration department is trying to punish schools who are more cautious about opening up like nothing is happening. It tastes bad.
edit: edited to reflect the inaccuracy as pointed out by PeterisP. SEVIS is overseen by ICE, not the department of education. Our representatives for SEVIS are generally connected to the DoE in some fashion. I didn't realize folks wouldn't know that ICE oversees immigrants, and that the Ed Department isn't responsible for making this policy.
It's not like any education representative can change immigration policy or grant some exceptions, it's not up to them.
If taking online classes means that the students visas become invalid, or if their current visa restrictions mean that it's prohibited for them to be in an online-only program, then that's exactly what it means, and it's wrong to blame schools or education department about it, it's not about education but about immigration policy - the domain of Department of State, Congress, etc.
If taking online classes means that the students visas become invalid, or if their current visa restrictions mean that it's prohibited for them to be in an online-only program, then that's exactly what it means, and it's wrong to blame schools or education department about it, it's not about education but about immigration policy - the domain of Department of State, Congress, etc.
Surely every person involved should simply be turning to the people above/before them in the chain of command and saying "this is impossible, we need to be more flexible now". And whoever is blocking that escalation is reasonably part of the problem.
For someone in education there's nobody to escalate to with the power to affect immigration policy. The senior leaders in any university can't do that, and the senior leaders in Department of Education can't do that, it's not their domain to decide that.
You'd have to escalate up to the president, he's the only link between the people the grandparent poster is complaining to and the people who decide the things grandparent poster wants to change. And it may well be that the response of the top administration is that everything works as intended, that the effect you're complaining about is something they want to increase, not fix.
You'd have to escalate up to the president, he's the only link between the people the grandparent poster is complaining to and the people who decide the things grandparent poster wants to change. And it may well be that the response of the top administration is that everything works as intended, that the effect you're complaining about is something they want to increase, not fix.
Escalating only works when you can reach reason in the higher chain. You can only go to senior leadership with the options and consequences. We have option A or option B, or we do nothing and we have consequence C. When that leader picks consequence C then you're stuck.
We have an administration that doesn't value academia or the visa program. So it's no surprise they're willing to sacrifice it in name of "schools must open".
We have an administration that doesn't value academia or the visa program. So it's no surprise they're willing to sacrifice it in name of "schools must open".
Firstly, I don't know of any situation where that's true. If your manager is insisting on something impossible or immoral/unethical, you escalate. Escalating doesn't have to be within the organisation. It can be going public, going sideways (to clients/collaborators), or going way up (to investors/funders/government/regulators).
Secondly, what I was saying is that whoever is the person that refuses to take it higher - that person is the problem. If you're stuck underneath them, go above them, or go public, or do whatever you need to do to avoid compromising yourself.
Secondly, what I was saying is that whoever is the person that refuses to take it higher - that person is the problem. If you're stuck underneath them, go above them, or go public, or do whatever you need to do to avoid compromising yourself.
“It’s the law” is a terrible rationale though. Our values should inform our laws and their interpretation, not the other way around.
There is a clear externality forcing this situation and it is clearly more detrimental to force them out of the country than to just make special accommodations/provisions. Pass a bill if that makes it more palatable and set it to have a termination date with the ability to “re-up” if this situation continues. But shrugging and going “them’s the rules” when it suits us and being flexible elsewhere (freelancers getting unemployment benefits, for instance) seems arbitrary and, frankly, capricious.
There is a clear externality forcing this situation and it is clearly more detrimental to force them out of the country than to just make special accommodations/provisions. Pass a bill if that makes it more palatable and set it to have a termination date with the ability to “re-up” if this situation continues. But shrugging and going “them’s the rules” when it suits us and being flexible elsewhere (freelancers getting unemployment benefits, for instance) seems arbitrary and, frankly, capricious.
Some logic needs to come in too though, what is the point of an international student renting an apartment in the US and taking a class over the Internet?
Student visas make good sense, allow people from around the world to come here and get an education which is better or different and have a cultural exchange... but if coming here just gets you the cultural exchange of going to the grocery store and watching lectures online that could be watched from anywhere... what's the point?
I personally have a problem with how international students are used as cash cows and then later often as a lower class of intellectual labor in labs (I have heard first hand stories of this happening, more than once). When universities have an ample supply of people willing to do anything in order to get citizenship, the people who don't have that circumstance are pushed out because of the poor conditions enabled by the many people who accept it. Career academia sucks. Grads and post grads are paid little and way overworked chasing after the dream of a rare tenured faculty position.
Student visas make good sense, allow people from around the world to come here and get an education which is better or different and have a cultural exchange... but if coming here just gets you the cultural exchange of going to the grocery store and watching lectures online that could be watched from anywhere... what's the point?
I personally have a problem with how international students are used as cash cows and then later often as a lower class of intellectual labor in labs (I have heard first hand stories of this happening, more than once). When universities have an ample supply of people willing to do anything in order to get citizenship, the people who don't have that circumstance are pushed out because of the poor conditions enabled by the many people who accept it. Career academia sucks. Grads and post grads are paid little and way overworked chasing after the dream of a rare tenured faculty position.
One point of an international student renting an apartment in the US and taking a class over the Internet is that they're in the right time zone, and don't have to stay up all night to attend classes and other sessions (with the known negative health effects of doing so, along with how to handle the fact that the rest of the family is sharing small living quarters that makes 2am classes a problem for the whole family).
Yet, they continued to come over and do this. They likely had a reason. Whether its prestige, a cultural experience, available work contacts post-study or whatever.
And as for 'lower class intellectual labor', lets talk medical Residents? Years of indentured servitude post-doc. And we consider that reasonable.
And as for 'lower class intellectual labor', lets talk medical Residents? Years of indentured servitude post-doc. And we consider that reasonable.
They’re already here, travel is potentially dangerous (especially a large exodus of international students), time zone issues, ability to pick back up where they left off easily, possible local employment/internships, apartments/hoisting they’re under a lease for, the undoubtedly insane cluster it’ll be when folks try to return...the list goes on dude. That’s off the top of my head. Surely you can see how burdensome this “solution” is?
I am not trying to take a side but adding a point or two worth consideration.
> what is the point of an international student renting an apartment in the US and taking a class over the Internet?
They're two years into a program, didn't create the circumstances that are forcing them to take their education entirely online, and the notion that they can return to their home country and participate in classes that might be happening at 3:00 am local time seems pretty far fetched?
Most of these upper-level online classes are participatory, not Coursera-style "watch a recording".
They're two years into a program, didn't create the circumstances that are forcing them to take their education entirely online, and the notion that they can return to their home country and participate in classes that might be happening at 3:00 am local time seems pretty far fetched?
Most of these upper-level online classes are participatory, not Coursera-style "watch a recording".
Not every international student has a good internet connection at home, and collaborating with students in the US could be extremely different if they come from a very different time zone.
If you can study in the US, generally you are not poor. You are paying high rent in the US. They can afford more than one internet connection with mostly likly significantly reduce living costs.
Not just "generally". People bemoan high costs of college education in the US (and I tend to agree with them), not realizing that for international students, the tuition pricing alone can be easily twice the cost it is for out-of-state-students (which is already at least twice the cost for in-state students).
International students pay twice the price of tuition alone, not even mentioning all other extra expenses they have to pay. And since they cannot utilize a lot of financial aid available to US residents (federal student loans, certain scholarships, etc.), they pretty much have to have a lot of money in cash to be able to just pay for college.
Note: I am not saying that since they are very likely rich, they deserve to deal with all those struggles. And I get it, there could be some international students who come from a far-from-wealthy family, where all their money were pooled towards their college education. That seems to be a rare exception though, from what I have observed (haven't met a single international student like that, but plenty of the former kind).
International students pay twice the price of tuition alone, not even mentioning all other extra expenses they have to pay. And since they cannot utilize a lot of financial aid available to US residents (federal student loans, certain scholarships, etc.), they pretty much have to have a lot of money in cash to be able to just pay for college.
Note: I am not saying that since they are very likely rich, they deserve to deal with all those struggles. And I get it, there could be some international students who come from a far-from-wealthy family, where all their money were pooled towards their college education. That seems to be a rare exception though, from what I have observed (haven't met a single international student like that, but plenty of the former kind).
That would be a slim minority. Most intl students are in au courant language “privileged” and are either upper middle or at least middle class. Very few live the life of a lower stratum American.
It's a total dick move by them to enforce it right now. If the student is normally enrolled full time in person and they just have this/next semester online, they shouldn't be required to pack their bags and leave for just one or two semesters. That's very different from the intent of not letting online students physically enter the us for no reason. Already many students were stuck here in may since international travel was restricted by many countries. Doing stupid pointless shit like this has no positive effect.
Technically it may be a reenforcement but Corona Virus has changed quite a few things and it is also a practical fact that a lot of people are stranded and cannot travel to their home countries right now that easily. So you cannot just "enforce" the law and it needs a more balanced approach by the administration. If they don't act according to the current situation, it is not a good thing regardless of what the law is. Immigration is very discretionary when it comes to these types of situations. They can always say "Hey there is this law but considering where we are with Corona, we will give you some flexibility".
Right, but unlike a designed-to-be-online program, depending on the university/each individual class, many of the classes are not going to be designed with timezone differences in mind, not designed to get through local internet filters, etc. The thinking behind the rules is that there is no need to live in the US to participate in a fully-online program, but this is not applicable to a regular program that is temporarily forced to run online due to the pandemic only.
Additionally, this ignores the financial losses (ex costs of breaking leases, selling property, expensive/hard to schedule air travel which may require more legs than usual now, shipping, large currency conversions) caused by a sudden move back. Additionally, there will be costs to get internet access and other necessary materials back home. Some institutions still have not announced their plans, and they can change at any time.
These are people who want to and have been living on campus. They are not just taking advantage of the visa to sit in front of a computer screen for four years--so there is no reason they should have to leave. This clearly has no relevance to the initial intent of the policy, and refusing to waive it in this case demonstrates the government's effort to hurt people of other nationalities in any way possible.
Additionally, this ignores the financial losses (ex costs of breaking leases, selling property, expensive/hard to schedule air travel which may require more legs than usual now, shipping, large currency conversions) caused by a sudden move back. Additionally, there will be costs to get internet access and other necessary materials back home. Some institutions still have not announced their plans, and they can change at any time.
These are people who want to and have been living on campus. They are not just taking advantage of the visa to sit in front of a computer screen for four years--so there is no reason they should have to leave. This clearly has no relevance to the initial intent of the policy, and refusing to waive it in this case demonstrates the government's effort to hurt people of other nationalities in any way possible.
International students should be allowed to stay as long as they're full-time, and are accepted into an accredited university with the intention of attending in person.
I guess the gray area here is that colleges, many of them being for-profit entities, are facing big drops in enrollment and can essentially sell US citizenship in exchange for tuition payments. Once an online course system is set up, the only cost is generating new user credentials.
I guess the gray area here is that colleges, many of them being for-profit entities, are facing big drops in enrollment and can essentially sell US citizenship in exchange for tuition payments. Once an online course system is set up, the only cost is generating new user credentials.
> "sell US citizenship"
This is a big overstatement. There are many far from trivial steps between being a F/M student and getting citizenship.
It certainly is a way for people to start they "immigration journey" to the US, though, obviously.
This is a big overstatement. There are many far from trivial steps between being a F/M student and getting citizenship.
It certainly is a way for people to start they "immigration journey" to the US, though, obviously.
Going from a student with F visa to Green Card is a >10 year adventure with all sorts of problems and complex legal framework. Not to mention, it's practically impossible for some majors, in particular if your major does not apply to OPT STEM extension, it's very hard to get H1B as you have 1 chance to be picked in lottery.
This "universities sell US citizenship" thing is plain misinformation.
This "universities sell US citizenship" thing is plain misinformation.
If you are from India, it's a 150-year adventure.
> International students should be allowed to stay as long as they're full-time, and are accepted into an accredited university with the intention of attending in person.
Luckily, that's exactly what these new "rules" allow for (check the source material, not just news coverage of it; the source material is written in a pretty plain and easy to understand language, not walls of legalese). You are only getting kicked out if your courseload is fully online or if you don't take enough classes to qualify for a full-time student status. Otherwise, you are good.
Luckily, that's exactly what these new "rules" allow for (check the source material, not just news coverage of it; the source material is written in a pretty plain and easy to understand language, not walls of legalese). You are only getting kicked out if your courseload is fully online or if you don't take enough classes to qualify for a full-time student status. Otherwise, you are good.
There are easier ways to buy a citizenship
To add a bit of color:
* One of my friends went to live with her parents after her OPT expired. She was supposed to enroll in an M.S. in August, but due to COVID, the embassies in her country were shut down. While her university is hybrid, she chose to stay in her home country to take the online-only courses, which are (fortunately) discounted.
* My sister, who is trying to renew her F-1 and has no other status options, is hoping that her school doesn't go online.
* My mom, an immunocompromised professor, is asking the university for an exemption to their in-person requirement. The university said no. The word around is that a financial analyst explained to administration that if people don't have the "campus experience" and therefore stop paying for housing/dining halls, the university would face insolvency within 2 semesters.
All in all, it seems like a way to pressure universities to open. They cannot reasonably close and lose like 5-10% more of their revenue by losing all international students, especially if they haven't figured out online course delivery to recoup some fees from F-1s.
* One of my friends went to live with her parents after her OPT expired. She was supposed to enroll in an M.S. in August, but due to COVID, the embassies in her country were shut down. While her university is hybrid, she chose to stay in her home country to take the online-only courses, which are (fortunately) discounted.
* My sister, who is trying to renew her F-1 and has no other status options, is hoping that her school doesn't go online.
* My mom, an immunocompromised professor, is asking the university for an exemption to their in-person requirement. The university said no. The word around is that a financial analyst explained to administration that if people don't have the "campus experience" and therefore stop paying for housing/dining halls, the university would face insolvency within 2 semesters.
All in all, it seems like a way to pressure universities to open. They cannot reasonably close and lose like 5-10% more of their revenue by losing all international students, especially if they haven't figured out online course delivery to recoup some fees from F-1s.
The point about your mom (and more broadly older faculty) is important. I hope it works out for her.
Vulnerable faculty will likely be forced to hold "in-person" lectures (ergo worsening their risk profiles) for the universities to create quasi-in-person courses: in that, videos will still be recorded and students probably won't show up but, on paper, it wouldn't be classified as an online course. This would likely be coupled with batch-scheduled exams being the only occasion the students need to show up in person for (or perhaps, those too are obviated via take-home exams?). This is essentially identical to some large enrollment, advanced CS theory courses I've taken.
Vulnerable faculty will likely be forced to hold "in-person" lectures (ergo worsening their risk profiles) for the universities to create quasi-in-person courses: in that, videos will still be recorded and students probably won't show up but, on paper, it wouldn't be classified as an online course. This would likely be coupled with batch-scheduled exams being the only occasion the students need to show up in person for (or perhaps, those too are obviated via take-home exams?). This is essentially identical to some large enrollment, advanced CS theory courses I've taken.
As someone who studied in the US on an F1 visa, I can tell you that this rule has always been in place. The F1 visa was always extremely restrictive whether it was regarding minimum number of in person credits or regarding allowing students to work part time.
It seems especially cruel that they'd choose to enforce the rule at a time like this.
It seems especially cruel that they'd choose to enforce the rule at a time like this.
Exactly. F-1 is already very very restrictive. Enforcing this rule is bad and doesn't take any account any sort of local differences.
What if the state close all college campuses ? Sorry, bye bye, go home.
What if the state close all college campuses ? Sorry, bye bye, go home.
They previously removed the restriction. Stolen from another comment:
> See this guidance from March: "Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 emergency, SEVP will allow F-1 and/or M-1 students to temporarily count online classes towards a full course of study in excess of the limits... This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency" Absolutely nothing substantive has changed since then, but ICE has apparently changed its mind.
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2....
> See this guidance from March: "Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 emergency, SEVP will allow F-1 and/or M-1 students to temporarily count online classes towards a full course of study in excess of the limits... This temporary provision is only in effect for the duration of the emergency" Absolutely nothing substantive has changed since then, but ICE has apparently changed its mind.
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2....
I'm in the same position and I agree.
The rule makes sense and is there to prevent an exploit on using student visas to move to the US.
However, enforcing it during a pandemic is cruel and really reinforces how Trump and his administration are aggressive towards international people - even if we are coming to elite schools and would bring value to the US economy.
The rule makes sense and is there to prevent an exploit on using student visas to move to the US.
However, enforcing it during a pandemic is cruel and really reinforces how Trump and his administration are aggressive towards international people - even if we are coming to elite schools and would bring value to the US economy.
I know this will be very unpleasant and will entail a lot of hardship for a lot of people but I can't help but wonder if in the long term this will help to start reversing the "brain drain" problem that many developing nations are struggling with. They'll still have access to their classes and be able to acquire the requisite skills, but now they'll be building something in their home country not stuck in a middle tier position within the US.
Of course not saying that means the policies made are good or bad, I am just curious to the second order effect this will have.
Of course not saying that means the policies made are good or bad, I am just curious to the second order effect this will have.
The effect would be these students would not opt for these courses. For majority of these students the main attraction is employment in USA, for a small subset experiencing American culture. In absence of both of these there is no reason for students to take online courses from American Universities.
> The effect would be these students would not opt for these courses. For majority of these students the main attraction is employment in USA, for a small subset experiencing American culture. In absence of both of these there is no reason for students to take online courses from American Universities.
Keep in mind that this is expected for 1 of at least 4 years of undergraduate, or 1 of 2-5 years of graduate, education. Someone's still going to have plenty of time living in the US and interacting with potential future US colleagues.
(I'm accepting at face value your assertion that signalling provided by a degree from a US institution has ~no value. I don't think that's the case, but my comment above makes that question close to moot.)
Keep in mind that this is expected for 1 of at least 4 years of undergraduate, or 1 of 2-5 years of graduate, education. Someone's still going to have plenty of time living in the US and interacting with potential future US colleagues.
(I'm accepting at face value your assertion that signalling provided by a degree from a US institution has ~no value. I don't think that's the case, but my comment above makes that question close to moot.)
Are you aware of work authorization restrictions?
I'm not an expert on US work authorization, so take this with a grain of salt.
Changes have been proposed to the Visa program in 2020: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/01/new-h..., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-wor.... Most are about the H-1B Visa (and wouldn't be specific to graduating students from outside the US), but the process of going from F-1 to H-1B may also be affected.
https://www.internationalstudent.com/study_usa/graduation/vi... (and that whole site) has more on Visa options for graduating students. Hope this helps.
Changes have been proposed to the Visa program in 2020: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/01/new-h..., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-wor.... Most are about the H-1B Visa (and wouldn't be specific to graduating students from outside the US), but the process of going from F-1 to H-1B may also be affected.
https://www.internationalstudent.com/study_usa/graduation/vi... (and that whole site) has more on Visa options for graduating students. Hope this helps.
I find this a common sentiment here. As someone who left his country to study abroad, I find it very odd.
An individual looks at his or her options, decides that pursuing education in a foreign country will result in a better future for them and their family.
And somehow restricting their opportunity and their freedom to do so is a good thing? Certainly not for the individual in question.
Personally, I think the way to prevent brain drain is not to impose restrictions on individual liberty but to compete better on the education/career market.
An individual looks at his or her options, decides that pursuing education in a foreign country will result in a better future for them and their family.
And somehow restricting their opportunity and their freedom to do so is a good thing? Certainly not for the individual in question.
Personally, I think the way to prevent brain drain is not to impose restrictions on individual liberty but to compete better on the education/career market.
> I think the way to prevent brain drain is not to impose restrictions on individual liberty but to compete better on the education/career market.
Countries that are at the source of brain drains would typically like to do that but can't, just like they have problems solving other problems. $arbitrary country does not have the major tech companies to support tech-company level salaries and there is a chicken-and-egg problem there.
So an artificial restriction like that would indeed tilt things in their favor, which may help them solve this very problem in the long term.
If this anti-immigration trend is held over a sufficiently long time I think rich countries will start realizing what a magnificent deal they had.
Countries that are at the source of brain drains would typically like to do that but can't, just like they have problems solving other problems. $arbitrary country does not have the major tech companies to support tech-company level salaries and there is a chicken-and-egg problem there.
So an artificial restriction like that would indeed tilt things in their favor, which may help them solve this very problem in the long term.
If this anti-immigration trend is held over a sufficiently long time I think rich countries will start realizing what a magnificent deal they had.
>If this anti-immigration trend is held over a sufficiently long time I think rich countries will start realizing what a magnificent deal they had.
I suspect as soon as the sentiment changes that people will rush to come here again. The US has for better or worse a fairly unique culture and those who like that will still want to immigrate in 5 or 10 years.
I suspect as soon as the sentiment changes that people will rush to come here again. The US has for better or worse a fairly unique culture and those who like that will still want to immigrate in 5 or 10 years.
I know several developers from developing nations that have strong ties to their countries of origin, and engage heavily in various "good works" there. They have massively more resources to do so due to their salaries in the US than they would if they were stuck in their countries of origin.
OTOH, if a critical mass of great developers went back to their countries of origin (assuming they want to live there), they would be able to earn US-level salaries there (probably less than what they earn in the US but comparable after subtracting cost of living and taxes). Also taxes would go to their countries as well instead of IRS (not sure if it's good or bad though, depends on the country).
Is the value of their charity greater than the cost of the country losing their talent? The "teach a man to fish" proverb comes to mind.
It is. Infrastructure, strong simple institutions simply do not exist.
And these people brain drained for a while and coming back later is better for those countries.
And these people brain drained for a while and coming back later is better for those countries.
Do you have any actual examples or research? Remittance and charity didn't exactly help East Germany prosper after the mass exodus of its young, professionals, and farmers...
Oh I am not talking about remittance.
I am talking about emigrants that come to more developed countries and then going back afterwards.
I am talking about emigrants that come to more developed countries and then going back afterwards.
People aren't coming here for learning (not the first priority), rather a college education is the gateway to a high paying job in the US and it's lifestyle.
I doubt it, since it's not US universities that are causing the brain drain so much as well-paying US tech companies.
Many would argue that the main benefit of studying in the US for an average foreign student is the possibility to live in the US, get some good connection in the US that could help him later and an opportunity to get a job in the US.
If the study is 100% remote, none of these benefits applies anymore, and since the quality of studies itself is comparable to many European or Asian universities, it is hard to justify the cost of US university scholarship.
If the study is 100% remote, none of these benefits applies anymore, and since the quality of studies itself is comparable to many European or Asian universities, it is hard to justify the cost of US university scholarship.
Maybe, but I think the main problem is that a middle tier position in the US pays a lot more and provides a higher standard of living than what some can expect in their own home countries.
No, they're going to transfer to a school that's still holding in-person classes. Many international students do not have the money/internet access/stable home situation to go home and continue taking classes.
Here's one major problem off the top of my head: what if you're from China or Iran and your school uses G Suite for Education? Accessing classes from home would be literally illegal.
Here's one major problem off the top of my head: what if you're from China or Iran and your school uses G Suite for Education? Accessing classes from home would be literally illegal.
The US is not the only option if you're willing to immigrate. This policy pushes talented students away to other developed Anglophone countries. Some would rather not go abroad if they can't go to the US. Much of the benefit of an F1 visa is the ability to get stay and work in the US.
They go to the next best offer, probably Europe.
As an international student myself, it has been a very confusing last few months, and now this. I am fortunate enough to be back in my home country but I know of many others who are stuck in the US due to travel restrictions or financial reasons. Forcing them to leave for a situation they cannot control during a pandemic is cruel.
I urge everyone to sign this petition[0] to help international students who are here to pursue higher education in the US, by asking ICE to rescind their decision.
[0] https://www.change.org/p/ice-let-international-students-stay
I urge everyone to sign this petition[0] to help international students who are here to pursue higher education in the US, by asking ICE to rescind their decision.
[0] https://www.change.org/p/ice-let-international-students-stay
All of those students who came to the US to try to get an education will remember this for the rest of their lives. When all of those future scientists, business leaders, journalists, politicians, artists, and so on think about the US, they will think back to how the US treated them at a time of global crisis.
I really hope universities can find a loophole around this. Three days of in-class lecture per semester, but allow for three unexcused absences for any reason.
The college I go to uses a loophole to allow military veterans to get the full monetary benefits of attending an in person class, while doing everything online. They don't have attendance requirements, all the material taught in class has to be available online, and no exercises or in class assignments count towards your final grade. That way the school can say you enrolled in an in-person class, and the student gets to decide whether or not they want to show up. Admittedly, the in class instruction normally isn't very good, and maybe 5-10 people still come in after the first few weeks.
Just another step on the way to the US becoming a pariah state. I'm really not looking forward to the next few years here. While electing a Democratic government might be able to reverse some of the policies, check out what the senate is doing to the judicial branch to see why that might not be enough, it won't return the trust or reputation of the US.
The nativist, anti-intellectual, and outright fascist elements of the US have gone from a vocal minority to a genuine force in American politics thanks to the Senate. While they still are a minority of the population, probably 20% if you cast the absolute widest net possible, due to gerrymandering, 2 Senators per state, lifetime judicial appointments, the electoral college, and extreme voter suppression they are in charge of huge swaths of the government. It's gonna be a wild ride.
The nativist, anti-intellectual, and outright fascist elements of the US have gone from a vocal minority to a genuine force in American politics thanks to the Senate. While they still are a minority of the population, probably 20% if you cast the absolute widest net possible, due to gerrymandering, 2 Senators per state, lifetime judicial appointments, the electoral college, and extreme voter suppression they are in charge of huge swaths of the government. It's gonna be a wild ride.
In an ideal world, this is where the legislature steps in and passes a law that allows these students to stay for the 2020-21 school year, rather than assuming the executive branch just selectively continues non-enforcement of this requirement.
If you're a US citizen, you can contact your representative/senators offices and ask them to deal with this.
If you're a US citizen, you can contact your representative/senators offices and ask them to deal with this.
I'm expecting universities to begin to encourage international students to sign up for in-person lab classes to bypass this rule.
Are any HN'ers aware of policies emerging to this effect? I expect there to be some back-and-forth between educational institutions and the government on this one.
Are any HN'ers aware of policies emerging to this effect? I expect there to be some back-and-forth between educational institutions and the government on this one.
I had a similar first thought. A 0 credit, single class (1 hour per semester), in-person lab classes would reduce the 100% online to ... not. I wonder if there's rules in place to prevent this.
The whole thing is optimized for maximum cruelty, but the suggestion that students should transfer to another school that has in-person classes is just mockery.
In normal times transferring to another college is a process that takes 9-10 months. The admission rate for transfer applications is really low. And that's just for domestic transfer students. It is not even theoretically possible to transfer to another school in a couple of months. Not to mention that the F-1 student visa and the I-20 form needed to obtain such a visa are for a specific school only, so international students would also have to go back to their home countries and obtain new visas.
In normal times transferring to another college is a process that takes 9-10 months. The admission rate for transfer applications is really low. And that's just for domestic transfer students. It is not even theoretically possible to transfer to another school in a couple of months. Not to mention that the F-1 student visa and the I-20 form needed to obtain such a visa are for a specific school only, so international students would also have to go back to their home countries and obtain new visas.
On the plus side, maybe this will help with the talent brain affecting the countries from where those students come. If it matters I live in a country heavily affected by emigration.
I'm genuine curious what economic benefits this brings. With the very limited economics I've learned, most students are net spenders in the country, them being here will only pour more money in. Economically, how does stopping them coming in help anyone?
Driving down aggregate demand for higher education can help bring down the cost (how effectively would depend on the elasticity of supply, which I'm not sure about).
Fresh grads coming out of college with less debt should lead to higher aggregate spending in other sectors.
This is interesting. But this sounds like a long term effect right? Presumably universities aren't lowering tuitions just because of this semester?
Yeah, long term. Also, idk if that was the intention or if it will work. I just tried to think of any theoretical benefits.
Not shure what universities are doing. There are a lot of them. So far I've heard that Harvard will continue charging the same while pushing big chunk of students online.
You're right about benefits of foriegn capital flowing into US through international students. Net result can very well be negative.
Not shure what universities are doing. There are a lot of them. So far I've heard that Harvard will continue charging the same while pushing big chunk of students online.
You're right about benefits of foriegn capital flowing into US through international students. Net result can very well be negative.
It helps politicians to get elected. Immigrants don't vote (they can't), citizens with anti-immigrant sentiments do.
I mean this is obviously part of the consideration. But I'm curious about rational economic gains if there're any.
My academic friends are going absolutely bananas over this. Particularly at the graduate level, and particularly in technical fields, this will leave some departments unable to function. Even domestic students will suffer. And that's all aside from the long term effect on national competitiveness. I've seen some mention mercantilism, but this isn't even effective as that. True mercantilism would mean doing even more to keep other countries from benefiting from those students' knowledge and labor. This is not mercantilism; it's a very different and almost suicidal kind of nativism.
What this policy completely misses is that some courses are real-time online, not recorded, and that people live in different timezones across the globe.
This is extremely personally harmful to people affected.
This is extremely personally harmful to people affected.
Moreover, some classes use online services like GDocs. GDocs aren't accessible from certain countries.
Instructors want to reduce their risk of exposure, which is understandable. But serving that interest also means a lot of international students will lose their visas. Would limiting seats in class to just international students be a good way to reconcile both parties' interests?
Edit: this would raise issues of fairness and equal treatment (a lot of students, especially those not accustomed to remote learning, would feel cheated). There probably is no perfect solution.
Edit: this would raise issues of fairness and equal treatment (a lot of students, especially those not accustomed to remote learning, would feel cheated). There probably is no perfect solution.
With in-person classes, instructors (and students, and everyone) will get infected because of how the virus works, and there is not that much one can do about it until vaccine or herd immunity is developed.
Students will lose their visas because of bureaucratic BS which can be changed anytime, but probably won't be because of the current political climate.
So, one concern is grounded in nature, another in bureaucracy, I don't think there is much of reconciliation. Although I agree completely that students are not getting what they paid for (if they paid for in-person classes).
Students will lose their visas because of bureaucratic BS which can be changed anytime, but probably won't be because of the current political climate.
So, one concern is grounded in nature, another in bureaucracy, I don't think there is much of reconciliation. Although I agree completely that students are not getting what they paid for (if they paid for in-person classes).
Seems like bs to me. If you're on the other side of the planet you're expected to be online at 3am for lectures and exams? Ridiculous.
You’ve clearly never taken an online class.
Lectures are recorded, exams are usually flexible open windows
Lectures are recorded, exams are usually flexible open windows
My wife's online classes are real-time. She logs in at lecture time, asks questions with the other students. Same with section.
We're talking University experience here, which is all about engagement.
We're talking University experience here, which is all about engagement.
You clearly have no idea how universities are operating during covid. Most online classes are real-time and collaborative.
This is true for a 300-person Physics 101 lecture, but many many classes are discussion-based and don't work asynchronously. Professors are doing their best to modify stuff for this situation, but it's very hard to take something that's been taught the same way for 20 years and make up something new on the fly.
My wife was taking a university course that was forced online last semester due to COVID-19. It was completely real-time, 0% recorded.
My wife is in a masters program right now and all the lectures are live.
Students do all sorts of things to get a degree. Lots of folks in the working world, work at 3AM. Its not 'ridiculous', just onerous.
Why would anyone pay tens of thousands of dollars to take a class at 3am and be at risk of not being able to come back into the country to finish their degree?
Making people do onerous things without good cause IS ridiculous.
Um, it is a good reason. To continue to get a quality education.
I think the complaint is that it would be possible to get a quality education without the onerous requirements if it weren't for some bureaucratic gatekeeper -- they're not saying that education isn't a good reason, but rather there's no reason for the gatekeeping.
Understood. But my point, which wasn't getting through, is that its a pretty small complaint for the value of the result. Students have been complaining about early classes for maybe 1000 years now. Its not a strong argument.
The most impotant part of studying is often the interaction with peers (IMO). This is very hard to replicate digitally.
Harvard and MIT are suing. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/7/8/harvard-mit-sue-...
Some of you may find this quite interesting.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-GUI_N...
It's truly remarkable how ignorant the US now acts towards foreign students and talents given that a lot of world class scientists, artists and innovators are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants.
I hope this will give Europa and Asia the chance to get some of their emigrated talents back.
I hope this will give Europa and Asia the chance to get some of their emigrated talents back.
The last thing we need right now is to force a bunch people into international air travel. They should not enforce the policy for classes that have been temporarily moved online due to covid.
International folks need to realize that life is too precious. You don't want to spend time with bureaucracy and threat of deportation while getting education and pursuing productive careers.
America of the past is gone. It's rapidly deteriorating. Save your lives and don't enter into any educational or business arrangement with America.
America of the past is gone. It's rapidly deteriorating. Save your lives and don't enter into any educational or business arrangement with America.
This is extra horrible for European, Asian and African students, due to timezones.
and they will have to pay full price tuition, what a deal!
vote plz tnx
This is yet another attack against immigrant students as noted in sibling comments.
But it is also an attempt to force universities to open in the Fall despite the dangers of doing so. Many universities depend on the tuition from foreign students. The timing shows this (right after Harvard announced plans to go online), as well as Trump's tweets that schools must open in Fall.
But it is also an attempt to force universities to open in the Fall despite the dangers of doing so. Many universities depend on the tuition from foreign students. The timing shows this (right after Harvard announced plans to go online), as well as Trump's tweets that schools must open in Fall.
Nicely timed to deport HK students back there.
I think this is done on purpose but not as an immigration move. Its a play against universities, a political enemy of Trump.
At the same time this is happening, they are waiving the degree requirement for federal employment: a nice little monopoly rent universities had, as well as the immigration one. Americans might not appreciate this but not only colleges subsist on international students: they subsist on them requiring degrees for visas and to get preferential visa treatment. It's a path to residency.
I would have much preferred that there was a semblance of Rule of Law, and it would be more like discounting college degrees entirely for immigration and remove special visa privileges for students, but this gov is stupidly against immigration.
At the same time this is happening, they are waiving the degree requirement for federal employment: a nice little monopoly rent universities had, as well as the immigration one. Americans might not appreciate this but not only colleges subsist on international students: they subsist on them requiring degrees for visas and to get preferential visa treatment. It's a path to residency.
I would have much preferred that there was a semblance of Rule of Law, and it would be more like discounting college degrees entirely for immigration and remove special visa privileges for students, but this gov is stupidly against immigration.
Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai came through this route. It's not a degree for visa like you think it is.
$50,000 a year for a Harvard undergraduate course exclusive of accommodation and food. Sounds like there's a lot of fat that could be trimmed. Sounds immoral in fact.
It's not immoral, it's business. Harvard has presented a product and you are free to take it or leave it. What is unfortuntate though is that we've been conditioned as a society to believe that a higher education is the most valuable thing you could ever earn.
In France the students are paid to go to the best schools.
So, still immoral. It's gatekeeping upwards mobility with absurd prices.
You're missing the entire point of my comment - college is antiquated.
For neurosurgeons ? Come now.
Of course there are going to be exceptions to any blanket internet hot take.
So says you. But the rest of the world, including the job market, thinks otherwise. Thus, gatekeeping etc and the moral impact.
Its a private service, they don't sell "justice"
It's a private service. Lots of institutions used to be private until government realized that they were effectively States within States and nationalised them in the interests of the public good
> $50,000 a year for a Harvard undergraduate course exclusive of accommodation and food
Please don’t throw this number out without understanding how it really works.
55% of Harvard undergrads get some sort of financial aid. Much of this aid is in the form of grants that cover tuition. One simple example — if a student’s family makes $65k or less a year, tuition is free. Above $65k, there is a sliding scale, and financial aid officers have quite a bit of latitude to work with people with unusual financial situations.
To be fair, I think families making $250k-$350k in high cost of living areas might get the short end of the stick in this system, but even they have some flexibility if they work with the financial aid department.
Please don’t throw this number out without understanding how it really works.
55% of Harvard undergrads get some sort of financial aid. Much of this aid is in the form of grants that cover tuition. One simple example — if a student’s family makes $65k or less a year, tuition is free. Above $65k, there is a sliding scale, and financial aid officers have quite a bit of latitude to work with people with unusual financial situations.
To be fair, I think families making $250k-$350k in high cost of living areas might get the short end of the stick in this system, but even they have some flexibility if they work with the financial aid department.
What's called in economics, elastic pricing then. The same model that means you can be on the same package holiday as someone else paying a vastly different price. A model that would be criminal if you used it to charge customers in a high street shop. It's charging based on what you think you can screw out of them but, for cosmetic reasons, dressing it up as subsiding poorer students
That's $50k/year to put Harvard on your resume, and the privileges that follow.
Love or hate the top Ivies, they open up doors (or at least fast-track you to the door) that remain closed for a lot of graduates.
If your only goal in life is to maximize your chances at some cookie-cutter prestigious professional job / career, then $200k isn't too bad. The ROI is going to blow most everything else out of the water, as far as education goes.
Love or hate the top Ivies, they open up doors (or at least fast-track you to the door) that remain closed for a lot of graduates.
If your only goal in life is to maximize your chances at some cookie-cutter prestigious professional job / career, then $200k isn't too bad. The ROI is going to blow most everything else out of the water, as far as education goes.
Well, duh.
If you could get a student visa just by enrolling in a US-based online class, that would be quite the loophole for immigration.
If you could get a student visa just by enrolling in a US-based online class, that would be quite the loophole for immigration.
The missing perspective is that there are visa mills just as there are diploma mills, and that enforcement from both Immigration and Customs and Department of Education is piss-weak. They should have gotten on top of these institutions long ago, but they wouldn't, so here we are.
There is Georgia Tech, but there is also the College of Northern Virginia. Here is some background: https://cis.org/Report/Dregs-Higher-Education-Damage-Our-Imm...
There is Georgia Tech, but there is also the College of Northern Virginia. Here is some background: https://cis.org/Report/Dregs-Higher-Education-Damage-Our-Imm...
The missing context on your comment is that the CIS is a hate group according to the SPLC, which is among other heinous things in favor of the family separation policy, a crime against humanity.
CIS is a hate group
That's embarrassing. But even so, if you don't deal with known abuses you get groups like this, so it's imperative on the government to get ahead of the crazy train.
That's embarrassing. But even so, if you don't deal with known abuses you get groups like this, so it's imperative on the government to get ahead of the crazy train.
SPLC is a joke nowadays. They scoop up all sorts of names and label them hatemongers. It takes a lawsuit to get them to recant: [1]
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...
If you think that one high-profile mistake makes them "a joke" then you might not be aware of how much work SPLC does. For example, here is their page on CIS, with hundreds of citations and direct quotes https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...
Approximately half of these quotes are completely void of race or hate at all. It's just that one disagrees with the politics of the other.
That's basically the cycle of bloated USG bureaucracy in a nutshell. Don't predictably go after bad actors because there aren't enough enforcement resources to spend prosecuting small operations. Enact many overbearing draconian regulations in response to the continued existence of the bad actors. This creates chilling effects and compliance costs on the good actors. Large institutions benefit from their position becoming more entrenched with paperwork. Repeat.
So instead of investigating visa mills, lets kick students out of US who are attending Georgia Tech? What was the saying about throwing the baby with the bath water..
What you're missing is this is affecting all students in Georgia Tech, Harvard, MIT etc as well.
Why are you calling Georgia Tech a visa mill/diploma mill?
It's not mentioned at all in that linked article.
It's not mentioned at all in that linked article.
I think the OP is contrasting Georgia Tech with a visa mill.
He's using GT as an example of a "real" school with real online opportunities. The counterexample is Northern Virginia.
On it's surface, with no prior knowledge of reputation, it can be hard to recognize the diploma mill from the legitimate program. This becomes even more difficult when the legit program is a lesser known, lower tier, but still properly functioning institution.
On it's surface, with no prior knowledge of reputation, it can be hard to recognize the diploma mill from the legitimate program. This becomes even more difficult when the legit program is a lesser known, lower tier, but still properly functioning institution.
Learn from the immigration in Canada is a good idea.
USA immigration system needs reform. No free welfare for anyone who is able to work. For those who supports excessive welfare, set a donation page for them to put their money where their mouth is, tax deduction is fine with me though considering they actually did something instead of just talking the talk or expecting others do what they talk.
Most importantly, better the education system here first, no more trophy generation, no more AA for college admission, and reward STEM kids instead of treating them as nerds in school. Until then, you have to depend on H1B/F1 to stay ahead, which should only be a temporary fix.
USA immigration system needs reform. No free welfare for anyone who is able to work. For those who supports excessive welfare, set a donation page for them to put their money where their mouth is, tax deduction is fine with me though considering they actually did something instead of just talking the talk or expecting others do what they talk.
Most importantly, better the education system here first, no more trophy generation, no more AA for college admission, and reward STEM kids instead of treating them as nerds in school. Until then, you have to depend on H1B/F1 to stay ahead, which should only be a temporary fix.
Well it makes sense... If you done actually have to be in the country to take the courses, then your stay is optional. For students that cannot go back due to travel restrictions or that have other obligations in the country, it would make sense to let them stay.
Of course if they come from countries that do not possess the facilities necessary to access online content, that would put some students in quite a pickle. Maybe those could also be treated in a special manner, but I doubt that many would be affected.
Maybe the article wasn't explicit enough, but I'm not quite seeing the problem with this decision. Maybe the manner of communication?
Of course if they come from countries that do not possess the facilities necessary to access online content, that would put some students in quite a pickle. Maybe those could also be treated in a special manner, but I doubt that many would be affected.
Maybe the article wasn't explicit enough, but I'm not quite seeing the problem with this decision. Maybe the manner of communication?
> For students that cannot go back due to travel restrictions or that have other obligations in the country, it would make sense to let them stay.
These students will not be allowed to stay.
These students will not be allowed to stay.
It's because there is no "case by case" decision or any nuance. There is no "treated in a special manner". If you can't follow your classes in person, you have to leave.
If you don't, you probably won't be deported per so, but in the future, any benefits (like employment) can/will be denied.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755301
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23753413
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23753182