Getting Schooled: The Role of Universities in Attracting Immigrant Entrepreneurs(nber.org)
nber.org
Getting Schooled: The Role of Universities in Attracting Immigrant Entrepreneurs
https://www.nber.org/papers/w28773
80 comments
Having a more direct pathway to citizenship through university/graduate studies, if properly regulated, could be a tremendous benefit to the country rather than forcing graduates into H1B serfdom. Such a pathway would require careful oversight and restrictions to avoid abuse (like creating fake degree programs), but the benefits to everyone involved could vastly outweigh the costs. Interested in what others would think about this.
Then you'd just get people gaming the system or fake diploma mills - the rise of paper MBA's is one example.
And how do you make sure your getting students on Merit and not on wealth or social status how do you get the self taught Steve Woznick from say Nigeria, Keynya or Argentina
In the UK one establishment in London was shut down as they found a massive number of their "students" working in restaurants in brick lane.
And how do you make sure your getting students on Merit and not on wealth or social status how do you get the self taught Steve Woznick from say Nigeria, Keynya or Argentina
In the UK one establishment in London was shut down as they found a massive number of their "students" working in restaurants in brick lane.
You get "gaming the system" with any strategy, so pointing that out isn't very helpful. We should focus on weighing the specific tradeoffs of the various approaches, instead of dismissing them outright b/c they even require tradeoffs.
>In the UK one establishment in London was shut down as they found a massive number of their "students" working in restaurants in brick lane.
What was the name of the university?
What was the name of the university?
> And how do you make sure your getting students on Merit and not on wealth
I hate to break this to you, but if you're rich enough, you can already essentially buy an EB-5 visa by doing the right sort of investing:
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent...
Also, the USCIS is self-funded from application fees, so letting a few rich people pay huge amounts could actually lower fees for everyone else.
But yes, overall, the system is hell to navigate as I know from having hired lawyers and filed papers with them myself. It's already quite unfriendly to anyone who isn't capable of jumping through complicated hoops.
For example, recently they started rejecting applications that leave any field blank, so you must write N/A or 0 or whatever as discussed in the instructions.
Except the PDF validation doesn't allow a slash in there, so how do I ensure the system doesn't think I have 5 kids named NA NA NA? And 00/00/0000 isn't exactly a valid birthday, either. And some sections say "only fill this out if xyz" making it unclear whether the instructions to leave nothing blank or those instructions should take precedence.
Oh, and the Adobe digital signature thing is broken, so you can't actually fill it out with Adobe Acrobat... which they specifically recommend and have to find other PDF software.
They also specifically state that height should be entered with a leading zero, their example being 5' 09" ... and the PDF does not permit that leading zero, leaving you with 5' 9" contradicting their own example in the instructions.
Yeah, I filled out what I could in a different PDF viewer, printed it, then complied with the instructions by fixing the problems with a pen because we can lose status if they had decided not to accept the application in time. It worked, but the whole thing is just an exercise in frustration.
I hate to break this to you, but if you're rich enough, you can already essentially buy an EB-5 visa by doing the right sort of investing:
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent...
Also, the USCIS is self-funded from application fees, so letting a few rich people pay huge amounts could actually lower fees for everyone else.
But yes, overall, the system is hell to navigate as I know from having hired lawyers and filed papers with them myself. It's already quite unfriendly to anyone who isn't capable of jumping through complicated hoops.
For example, recently they started rejecting applications that leave any field blank, so you must write N/A or 0 or whatever as discussed in the instructions.
Except the PDF validation doesn't allow a slash in there, so how do I ensure the system doesn't think I have 5 kids named NA NA NA? And 00/00/0000 isn't exactly a valid birthday, either. And some sections say "only fill this out if xyz" making it unclear whether the instructions to leave nothing blank or those instructions should take precedence.
Oh, and the Adobe digital signature thing is broken, so you can't actually fill it out with Adobe Acrobat... which they specifically recommend and have to find other PDF software.
They also specifically state that height should be entered with a leading zero, their example being 5' 09" ... and the PDF does not permit that leading zero, leaving you with 5' 9" contradicting their own example in the instructions.
Yeah, I filled out what I could in a different PDF viewer, printed it, then complied with the instructions by fixing the problems with a pen because we can lose status if they had decided not to accept the application in time. It worked, but the whole thing is just an exercise in frustration.
>In the UK one establishment in London was shut down as they found a massive number of their "students" working in restaurants in brick lane.
Foreign students are generally allowed to work part-time in the UK, so there has to be a bit more to the story than this.
Foreign students are generally allowed to work part-time in the UK, so there has to be a bit more to the story than this.
I think it doesn't exist precisely because it will create innumerous diploma mills that will also be now passport mills... Fake degrees are already a thing and they are bad for economy and society as they are, and very little can be done about them - economic incentive is too high.
The H1B visa is designed for indentured labor. We need your work and taxes but we won't give you permanence and your life may be uprooted any time so better be subservient to your master. Either restrict H1B to 6 years without extension or give everyone who's good enough to hold a job for 6 years a green card.
It might be that, but it would effectively be a means for Universities to basically sell citizenship for massive revenue.
Grad School programs are not that hard to get into or even pass.
'True H1Bs' - used what they are meant for and not as 'Infosys Visas' possibly altered a little bit for flexibility, I think are closer to what is needed.
Grad School programs are not that hard to get into or even pass.
'True H1Bs' - used what they are meant for and not as 'Infosys Visas' possibly altered a little bit for flexibility, I think are closer to what is needed.
But doesn’t this type of migration lead to brain drains?
If you take the best talent from the developing world and move them all to America for education and then capture their talents through migration, you deprived the developing world of the talent they need to develop and thrive, which puts the developing world even further behind!
Seems like if we want to help the developing world we need to train and equip their talented people and ensure they have the security and infrastructure to build their homelands into developed nations with established trade routes, etc.
Or we can continue to exploit developing countries by snatching their top talent. It’s not modern day slavery, but it seems to be uncomfortably close in its exploitation.
If you take the best talent from the developing world and move them all to America for education and then capture their talents through migration, you deprived the developing world of the talent they need to develop and thrive, which puts the developing world even further behind!
Seems like if we want to help the developing world we need to train and equip their talented people and ensure they have the security and infrastructure to build their homelands into developed nations with established trade routes, etc.
Or we can continue to exploit developing countries by snatching their top talent. It’s not modern day slavery, but it seems to be uncomfortably close in its exploitation.
"Brain drain" is a net benefit to the source country. Brains are worthless on their own without higher education and the know-how that's gained from being an expat to a developed country. It's very much a win-win arrangement.
It is a win for the home country only if the expat comes back, then they get access to an educated individual that would have been hard to train internally.
Many expats do come back to their home country, and pretty much all expats have at least some meaningful links and interactions with it.
Then that is not a brain drain, in many places (like my own country) very few people come back.
In that case whether justified of not, whether it should be stopped or not it is not a "win" for the home country people are leaving.
I am not arguing for or against, I am arguing that the pointed problem is not fabricated.
In that case whether justified of not, whether it should be stopped or not it is not a "win" for the home country people are leaving.
I am not arguing for or against, I am arguing that the pointed problem is not fabricated.
Many??? I doubt this is true. I am African, and throughout my college years, I established a very extensive network of African scholars in the US. I can safely say that more than 95% of them stayed in the US. The number for Africans is obviously higher, but even in my own college network, most of the international students stay in the US. The few who go back are either because they are rich or already have something lined up for them, or they did not get a job/visa to stay. Otherwise, for the overwhelming majority, the plan is to stay and most of them end up doing so.
Many African countries have truly dismal institutional arrangements that make return migration extremely unattractive. But when countries strive to improve, they stand to gain huge advantages from people coming back with good education and skills they acquired in a developed country.
What does it mean for a country to "strive to improve"? Do you expect a country to flourish when you siphon off the educated?
People won't return until the country improves, and the country won't "strive to improve" until the educated return.
People won't return until the country improves, and the country won't "strive to improve" until the educated return.
> Do you expect a country to flourish when you siphon off the educated?
Yes. Research shows that when more people are educated abroad (i.e. 'siphoned off') this tends to improve attitudes towards democracy and liberal values in the source country. This directly addresses one of the main factors explaining expats' attitudes towards coming back.
Yes. Research shows that when more people are educated abroad (i.e. 'siphoned off') this tends to improve attitudes towards democracy and liberal values in the source country. This directly addresses one of the main factors explaining expats' attitudes towards coming back.
Can you cite a source here?
There's a lot of research about this and I'm not going to link it all here, you can check wiki. One example is doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.12.001 "Emigration and democracy":
"Migration is an important yet neglected determinant of institutions. This paper documents the channels through which emigration affects home country institutions and considers dynamic-panel regressions for a large sample of developing countries. The authors find that emigration and human capital both increase democracy and economic freedom. ...Simulations show an impact of skilled emigration that is generally positive, significant for a few countries and for many countries once incentive effects of emigration on human capital formation are accounted for."
"Migration is an important yet neglected determinant of institutions. This paper documents the channels through which emigration affects home country institutions and considers dynamic-panel regressions for a large sample of developing countries. The authors find that emigration and human capital both increase democracy and economic freedom. ...Simulations show an impact of skilled emigration that is generally positive, significant for a few countries and for many countries once incentive effects of emigration on human capital formation are accounted for."
Let’s say you are a doctor in the developing world and you help your community.
You move to America and work there.
How does the source community gain from the loss of their doctor?
You move to America and work there.
How does the source community gain from the loss of their doctor?
This is ridiculous hyperbole. Most of the talent coming to the US are able to actually leverage their talent and live much more comfortable fulfilling lives here.
Why would you want to deny those individuals their right to wealth and a more comfortable life?
Why would you want to deny those individuals their right to wealth and a more comfortable life?
I don’t want to deny people anything, I want to distribute the talent and opportunity for success to bring up the standard of living globally instead of focusing all the success, opportunity and wealth in developed countries.
Is it fair to the less talented people of a developing nation that America takes the best doctors and teachers? Doesn’t that harm the development of that nation?
Is it fair to the less talented people of a developing nation that America takes the best doctors and teachers? Doesn’t that harm the development of that nation?
How much of your own capital do you invest in developing countries?
> I want to distribute the talent and opportunity for success to bring up the standard of living globally instead of focusing all the success, opportunity and wealth in developed countries
This is assuming that talent in developing countries will be able to leverage their talent in those countries. These individuals are more than capable of sending back capital that they earn in the US if they choose to do so. Also, global standards of living continue to improve due to the advancements made in developed countries.
>Is it fair to the less talented people of a developing nation that America takes the best doctors and teachers?
The US isn't taking anything, individuals are moving to where they will be most productive.
>Doesn’t that harm the development of that nation?
Possibly? Do the developing countries that these people are coming from appreciate their talent?
> I want to distribute the talent and opportunity for success to bring up the standard of living globally instead of focusing all the success, opportunity and wealth in developed countries
This is assuming that talent in developing countries will be able to leverage their talent in those countries. These individuals are more than capable of sending back capital that they earn in the US if they choose to do so. Also, global standards of living continue to improve due to the advancements made in developed countries.
>Is it fair to the less talented people of a developing nation that America takes the best doctors and teachers?
The US isn't taking anything, individuals are moving to where they will be most productive.
>Doesn’t that harm the development of that nation?
Possibly? Do the developing countries that these people are coming from appreciate their talent?
There are security, infrastructure and supply chain issues, absolutely, but i think it’s solvable.
Pick a single country and a few cities, and run a pilot project.
Take a bunch of people and train them in the USA, and send them home with a security force, and construct the basic infrastructure required and slowly expand the city with clean water, food, businesses.
But by bit build a better world.
Or, continue to capture the best and brightest, and ignoring the brain draining of the developing world and hope that they figure it out on their own.
Pick a single country and a few cities, and run a pilot project.
Take a bunch of people and train them in the USA, and send them home with a security force, and construct the basic infrastructure required and slowly expand the city with clean water, food, businesses.
But by bit build a better world.
Or, continue to capture the best and brightest, and ignoring the brain draining of the developing world and hope that they figure it out on their own.
>Take a bunch of people and train them in the USA, and send them home with a security force, and construct the basic infrastructure required and slowly expand the city with clean water, food, businesses.
I would love to see this kind of interventionism but after Iraq this isn't politically feasible. Also I don't think most developing countries would support this.
>Or, continue to capture the best and brightest, and ignoring the brain draining of the developing world and hope that they figure it out on their own.
Developing countries get to leverage advances made in developed countries which also them to develop much more quickly.
I would love to see this kind of interventionism but after Iraq this isn't politically feasible. Also I don't think most developing countries would support this.
>Or, continue to capture the best and brightest, and ignoring the brain draining of the developing world and hope that they figure it out on their own.
Developing countries get to leverage advances made in developed countries which also them to develop much more quickly.
> Also I don't think most developing countries would support this.
Honduras is betting big on it. Called a ZEDE ('Zona de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_for_Employment_and_Econom...
Honduras is betting big on it. Called a ZEDE ('Zona de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_for_Employment_and_Econom...
Sort of tangential to the discussion, but what a fascinating conceit: that any individual (on earth) has a right to wealth and comfort, such that the people of the United States should be obliged to expedite the fulfillment of that right, by allowing that individual to settle there.
High talented individuals moving to the US is a win-win for them and the US. They significantly help to strengthen the country and ensure it keeps its dominant position
In some individual cases, that is certainly true; so that's more of a non sequitur.
I'm trying to divine the origins of this "right" that highly talented individuals have, to move where they whilst to best avail themselves of opportunities, and what sort of strength and dominance they can contribute to the place they move to...that, if these qualities do emerge from highly talented individuals, why did they do them no good in the place they're moving _from_?
I'm trying to divine the origins of this "right" that highly talented individuals have, to move where they whilst to best avail themselves of opportunities, and what sort of strength and dominance they can contribute to the place they move to...that, if these qualities do emerge from highly talented individuals, why did they do them no good in the place they're moving _from_?
I don't know why you keep using the word "right". It's a beneficial situation for the individual and the US.
Because institutions and environments matter. Einstein wouldnt have been able to contribute nearly as much to humanity 5000 years ago as he could 80 years ago.
Because institutions and environments matter. Einstein wouldnt have been able to contribute nearly as much to humanity 5000 years ago as he could 80 years ago.
I keep using the word "right", because you said:
Why would you want to deny those individuals their right to wealth and a more comfortable life?
So now, it is not a right, but merely a beneficial arrangement so obvious as to be axiomatic?
Yes, institutions and environments matter...so much so, that one should be very, very careful about how they might be changed or altered, and how the benefits are calculated, and by whom...
Why would you want to deny those individuals their right to wealth and a more comfortable life?
So now, it is not a right, but merely a beneficial arrangement so obvious as to be axiomatic?
Yes, institutions and environments matter...so much so, that one should be very, very careful about how they might be changed or altered, and how the benefits are calculated, and by whom...
Ah my mistake. By "right to wealth/comfort" I meant their right to pursue those things.
High talent immigrants are objectively beneficial to the US and to those individuals.
High talent immigrants are objectively beneficial to the US and to those individuals.
Yep. There’s a dangerous line of thinking when people start arguing for positive rights.
Your suggestion implies that the source country owns the brains, not the individuals involved.
Should people really have to swim upstream all their lives in societies they don’t want to be in?
As an emigrant, and the owner of a brain, I find that idea abhorrent.
Should people really have to swim upstream all their lives in societies they don’t want to be in?
As an emigrant, and the owner of a brain, I find that idea abhorrent.
No ownership, but responsibly to the community.
I see many famous athletes who go to their hometown in America and invest in under developed neighborhoods they grew up in, and see that as a model for investing in communities on a global level.
It seems better than taking the best talent and allowing the cycle of poverty to continue.
Why is extracting talented humans from the developing world good for the developing world?
I see many famous athletes who go to their hometown in America and invest in under developed neighborhoods they grew up in, and see that as a model for investing in communities on a global level.
It seems better than taking the best talent and allowing the cycle of poverty to continue.
Why is extracting talented humans from the developing world good for the developing world?
> I see many famous athletes who go to their hometown in America and invest in under developed neighborhoods they grew up in, and see that as a model for investing in communities on a global level.
But those athletes became famous and successful precisely because they were allowed to leave and pursue their dreams - had they been stuck in their hometowns they wouldn't have achieved anything of the same caliber. If it's okay to leave your hometown, why isn't it okay to leave your home country?
The notion that people are beholden to the country they're born in is absolutely braindead. You're basically saying that a person born in a gutter should stay in that gutter because the gutter might benefit from it.
But those athletes became famous and successful precisely because they were allowed to leave and pursue their dreams - had they been stuck in their hometowns they wouldn't have achieved anything of the same caliber. If it's okay to leave your hometown, why isn't it okay to leave your home country?
The notion that people are beholden to the country they're born in is absolutely braindead. You're basically saying that a person born in a gutter should stay in that gutter because the gutter might benefit from it.
Precisely.
And there’s another dimension: what if the source country didn’t welcome the emigré? Should someone be forced to contribute to a society if they are not wanted?
I was surplus to requirements in my birth country so I left. Others I know left their birth nations for the new world because they are gay or atheist or a minority and didn’t feel welcome.
Talented or not, these people should be able to apply to move where they want to go.
And there’s another dimension: what if the source country didn’t welcome the emigré? Should someone be forced to contribute to a society if they are not wanted?
I was surplus to requirements in my birth country so I left. Others I know left their birth nations for the new world because they are gay or atheist or a minority and didn’t feel welcome.
Talented or not, these people should be able to apply to move where they want to go.
Not necessary.
I know folks who came here studied and worked (got tired of the green card waiting game), went back home and started companies.
w.r.t. fake universities, doesn't the accreditation process already handle that?
As someone who argues for the H1b program, I wish the US opts for a points-based system (a la the Canadian system) and make the (current lottery) H1b a 5/10 year temporary green-card based on points.
* Points for education level MS/PhD,
* Salary indexed to COL,
* Job location (Kansas earns higher points vs SF),
* some points for scholarly merit (patents, peer-reviewed publications) and so on...
This would address the some legitimate concerns of US workers, make the process transparent and orderly, but also keep the tech economy rolling. The current system is asinine and needs serious reform.
This is one of the greatest things the US has - immigrant entrepreneurs == entrepreneur^2 - and would be foolish to shut it down.
* Points for education level MS/PhD,
* Salary indexed to COL,
* Job location (Kansas earns higher points vs SF),
* some points for scholarly merit (patents, peer-reviewed publications) and so on...
This would address the some legitimate concerns of US workers, make the process transparent and orderly, but also keep the tech economy rolling. The current system is asinine and needs serious reform.
This is one of the greatest things the US has - immigrant entrepreneurs == entrepreneur^2 - and would be foolish to shut it down.
Interesting point from the paper:
> the average age for when immigrant founders got their social security number is close to 26 years old,which is a rough proxy for when these immigrants entered the United States. On the other hand, the average age at founding a VC-backed company is 49 years old, which indicates that the majority of founders, even in the latter part of the sample,likely immigrated to the United States before 2004
> the average age for when immigrant founders got their social security number is close to 26 years old,which is a rough proxy for when these immigrants entered the United States. On the other hand, the average age at founding a VC-backed company is 49 years old, which indicates that the majority of founders, even in the latter part of the sample,likely immigrated to the United States before 2004
Careful with the Canadian system: it never actually checks for employability.
The degree doesn't have to be recognized for it to be counted in the score. That's how you end up with "Engineers" driving taxis that are incapable of passing the PE exam (they are free to enroll, but would have to re-take pretty much the whole degree to have a shot at passing it).
The degree doesn't have to be recognized for it to be counted in the score. That's how you end up with "Engineers" driving taxis that are incapable of passing the PE exam (they are free to enroll, but would have to re-take pretty much the whole degree to have a shot at passing it).
Isn't H1-B a program for foreign workers, not entrepreneurs? Everything you listed (education,salary,job location,etc) has to do with workers, not entrepreneurs.
Actually there's quit a bit of overlap, many H1bs go onto start companies, some apply for an h1b through their own startup. Either way the immigrant entrepreneur almost universally say they find the US just "liberating" (compared to say India).
Universities are not about classes, it's about network out-side the classes. We all know that from experience, but Covid shaped us as a society in different ways. Companies will become global. Being a digital nomad will be normalized, and the difference between an entrepreneurs will be about ecosystem and entrepreneur status in the country.
Network effects will be always there, but not as before.
Network effects will be always there, but not as before.
> Universities are not about classes, it's about network out-side the classes.
That statement is true for a small set of elite universities. For the vast majority of higher education, the most important things are classes, degrees, and the jobs that result. If by "classes" you mean "lectures" then sure, lectures are a pretty small part of the university.
That statement is true for a small set of elite universities. For the vast majority of higher education, the most important things are classes, degrees, and the jobs that result. If by "classes" you mean "lectures" then sure, lectures are a pretty small part of the university.
I come from no-name university in the global south, and network/friends is the very important thing. Literally, I have many friends who traveled the world, worked in different places, and then came back to start a business together (with homies).
> That statement is true for a small set of elite universities.
In fact, elite universities tend to have good program and the prestige can take to places.
> That statement is true for a small set of elite universities.
In fact, elite universities tend to have good program and the prestige can take to places.
Yes, networking and making friends is big. but just learning a lot of the nuts and bolts for what is now my profession was also pretty big. Some people can self learn but the discipline and help from professors brought me a long ways.
I reckon I had very little network effect at unis, nor did I really remember any of the classes.
But it's still useful as a time where I get to think about what I want to do and actually try them (software, hah) with abundance of freedom.
That part was really important.
But it's still useful as a time where I get to think about what I want to do and actually try them (software, hah) with abundance of freedom.
That part was really important.
The Anglosphere is awash with these kind of visas and universities.
The ultimate outcome is to enrich University executives, drive down the quality of education (due to rampant cheating, overlooked when the students are paying customers), and to flood the local economy with cheap labour - typically young men from countries with gender imbalances.
If the USA wants to attract immigrant entrepreneurs the simplest way to do it is to enact open borders agreements with other high-HDI countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
And secondly to ensure gender equality and diversity at the underlying intake level by mandating a maximum 49% males from any one country, and a maximum 10% of the total from any one country.
The ultimate outcome is to enrich University executives, drive down the quality of education (due to rampant cheating, overlooked when the students are paying customers), and to flood the local economy with cheap labour - typically young men from countries with gender imbalances.
If the USA wants to attract immigrant entrepreneurs the simplest way to do it is to enact open borders agreements with other high-HDI countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
And secondly to ensure gender equality and diversity at the underlying intake level by mandating a maximum 49% males from any one country, and a maximum 10% of the total from any one country.
I have serious reservations about empowering universities to bestow green cards or residency upon would-be immigrants. I highly value the good people who will come to the US, but I don't trust universities to handle this responsibility, as PhD programs have clearly become very abusive of their students.
Low participation among US citizens in graduate (especially doctoral) level STEM PhD programs is often attributed to poor math and science preparation in K-12 or college level education in the US. While there is some support for this explanation, a RAND study of US citizens with STEM undergraduate degrees and high GRE scores found that the aversion to PhD programs is rational and market based. In short, the aversion to PhD programs makes sense - even for those who are capable and prepared to enter them - when those students have other options. Professional school programs, including Law, MBA, and professional health care doctorates (MD, DDS, PharmD) have shorter completion times, standardized and consistent completion schedules, vastly lower attrition rates, better employment prospects, and higher salaries.
I'd like to draw a bit more attention to attrition rates. I was a doctoral student at UC Berkeley in Industrial Engineering - I mastered out to a good hob in industry, but it was not entirely voluntarily. The doctoral attrition rate was around 50% for my cohort. This is pretty typical, attrition rates are 35-50% for PhDs in science and engineering. By contrast, the attrition rate for the MD program at UCSF medical school is less than one half of one percent. This is pretty standard for elite law schools as well. It's not an exaggeration to say that elite PhD programs in STEM have an attrition rate 70-100 times higher.
Now, every time I bring this up on HN, someone does point out (reasonably) that dropping out (especially mastering out) of a PhD program in, say, computer science is very different from dropping out of med school. Someone with a BS and MS in computer science from Berkeley faces a very different professional future in tech than someone who drops out of med school faces in medicine. However, these attrition rates are astoundingly high. They are so high that we need to ask these universities - if PhDs are in such critically short supply that we must grant you the power to bestow US residency on those who receive them from you, why are your attrition rates 100 times higher than a comparably elite law or medical school?
These programs should face a reckoning. When a job gets lousy, when a program gets abusive, the market tends to correct itself. Talented people abandon the field in favor of other paths, a shortage emerges, and employers (including universities) need to sweeten the deal to draw people back into the field. The RAND institute recommended several ways universities could make STEM doctoral degrees competitive with professional degrees. But as long as they can offer aa path to residency and citizenship that is denied through other paths, there's no need to attract people with that choice. There's no need for a market correction when the government will fix this by giving you control over the degrees people who would like to live and work in the United States are allowed to have.
In closing, I want to be clear I support a system for skilled immigration - the US needs this. However, I remain skeptical of the need to specifically privilege graduates of US stem programs, especially at the doctoral level. If we take this approach, expect people with choice to show even greater aversion to STEM PhDs.
Low participation among US citizens in graduate (especially doctoral) level STEM PhD programs is often attributed to poor math and science preparation in K-12 or college level education in the US. While there is some support for this explanation, a RAND study of US citizens with STEM undergraduate degrees and high GRE scores found that the aversion to PhD programs is rational and market based. In short, the aversion to PhD programs makes sense - even for those who are capable and prepared to enter them - when those students have other options. Professional school programs, including Law, MBA, and professional health care doctorates (MD, DDS, PharmD) have shorter completion times, standardized and consistent completion schedules, vastly lower attrition rates, better employment prospects, and higher salaries.
I'd like to draw a bit more attention to attrition rates. I was a doctoral student at UC Berkeley in Industrial Engineering - I mastered out to a good hob in industry, but it was not entirely voluntarily. The doctoral attrition rate was around 50% for my cohort. This is pretty typical, attrition rates are 35-50% for PhDs in science and engineering. By contrast, the attrition rate for the MD program at UCSF medical school is less than one half of one percent. This is pretty standard for elite law schools as well. It's not an exaggeration to say that elite PhD programs in STEM have an attrition rate 70-100 times higher.
Now, every time I bring this up on HN, someone does point out (reasonably) that dropping out (especially mastering out) of a PhD program in, say, computer science is very different from dropping out of med school. Someone with a BS and MS in computer science from Berkeley faces a very different professional future in tech than someone who drops out of med school faces in medicine. However, these attrition rates are astoundingly high. They are so high that we need to ask these universities - if PhDs are in such critically short supply that we must grant you the power to bestow US residency on those who receive them from you, why are your attrition rates 100 times higher than a comparably elite law or medical school?
These programs should face a reckoning. When a job gets lousy, when a program gets abusive, the market tends to correct itself. Talented people abandon the field in favor of other paths, a shortage emerges, and employers (including universities) need to sweeten the deal to draw people back into the field. The RAND institute recommended several ways universities could make STEM doctoral degrees competitive with professional degrees. But as long as they can offer aa path to residency and citizenship that is denied through other paths, there's no need to attract people with that choice. There's no need for a market correction when the government will fix this by giving you control over the degrees people who would like to live and work in the United States are allowed to have.
In closing, I want to be clear I support a system for skilled immigration - the US needs this. However, I remain skeptical of the need to specifically privilege graduates of US stem programs, especially at the doctoral level. If we take this approach, expect people with choice to show even greater aversion to STEM PhDs.
I am really struggling to understand your point. The reasons for the different rates of attrition, and the outcomes to society matter, yet you say nothing about causes.
It is good if engineers have the choice to drop out of postgrad to get a job in their discipline instead (is that why STEM has high attrition rates?)
It is probably good if STEM has strict standards and the high attrition rate is because marginal students don’t make the grade. Good engineering matters far more to the world than good doctoring does.
It is bad if medical students can get a MD regardless of their competency level?
It would be good if MDs had a low attrition rate because the filtering to get accepted let through only 1.5% of incompetent students (causally seems unlikely, but just hypothesising!). A lot of the filtering for lawyers occurs when they get a job (bimodal distribution of pay).
It is good if engineers have the choice to drop out of postgrad to get a job in their discipline instead (is that why STEM has high attrition rates?)
It is probably good if STEM has strict standards and the high attrition rate is because marginal students don’t make the grade. Good engineering matters far more to the world than good doctoring does.
It is bad if medical students can get a MD regardless of their competency level?
It would be good if MDs had a low attrition rate because the filtering to get accepted let through only 1.5% of incompetent students (causally seems unlikely, but just hypothesising!). A lot of the filtering for lawyers occurs when they get a job (bimodal distribution of pay).
It's difficult to distill a complicated topic into a comment, even a somewhat lengthy one. I don't like respond to a question with a link (after all, a reading list is not an argument), but in this case, it probably would be best for me to provide the RAND study rather than try to summarize it.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
I do need to mention something here - I've argued with people about this for a long time, and I've provided this link, but it is old now, from 2003. I believe that prospects for STEM graduate degrees have increased dramatically in the last 20 years relative to other professional degree programs. So while I do think the arguments in th RAND study still hold (especially around reform for doctoral program), I suspect that the argument that an aversion to STEM graduate degrees in favor of professional degrees (for people who are free to choose other fields and are not restricted by immigration or citizenship status) is not as strong as it was nearly 20 years ago. I believe this is probably due to (among other things) a huge increase in global demand for STEM workers and the disruption of the wage collusion going on between large tech employers.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
I do need to mention something here - I've argued with people about this for a long time, and I've provided this link, but it is old now, from 2003. I believe that prospects for STEM graduate degrees have increased dramatically in the last 20 years relative to other professional degree programs. So while I do think the arguments in th RAND study still hold (especially around reform for doctoral program), I suspect that the argument that an aversion to STEM graduate degrees in favor of professional degrees (for people who are free to choose other fields and are not restricted by immigration or citizenship status) is not as strong as it was nearly 20 years ago. I believe this is probably due to (among other things) a huge increase in global demand for STEM workers and the disruption of the wage collusion going on between large tech employers.
I think you are trying to say that STEM could follow an “MD model” as a solution to the shortage of STEM graduates.
From your link, solution 4 is “Introduce two new professional doctoral degree programs for science and engineering built on the MD model. This fourth strategy would also reduce training costs and uncertainties, specifically for those whose career goals focus on professional practice rather than cutting-edge research. Graduates would have a firm grounding in a broad set of skills, understand how their skills fit in with other skill sets, and be able to keep up with the cutting edge. These new programs would feature a structured curriculum with well-defined completion criteria and a definite term, perhaps of four years. Their faculty would be practitioners with other sources of income, as in medical schools. The rapid growth of industrial parks, corporate-like technical centers, and corporate partnerships would facilitate this arrangement. As with existing professional degree programs, students would not normally rely on grants and fellowships but would instead look to substantially higher lifetime earnings to pay their own way. The attractiveness of this strategy depends partly on whether the current employment of S&E PhDs could be partly satisfied instead by holders of these new professional doctoral degrees.”
To me that is just an academic hodgepodge of ideas that reads like wishful thinking.
I suggest that if you wish to make your point clearly, perhaps expand it into a blog article, and back it up with the facts you have access to.
From your link, solution 4 is “Introduce two new professional doctoral degree programs for science and engineering built on the MD model. This fourth strategy would also reduce training costs and uncertainties, specifically for those whose career goals focus on professional practice rather than cutting-edge research. Graduates would have a firm grounding in a broad set of skills, understand how their skills fit in with other skill sets, and be able to keep up with the cutting edge. These new programs would feature a structured curriculum with well-defined completion criteria and a definite term, perhaps of four years. Their faculty would be practitioners with other sources of income, as in medical schools. The rapid growth of industrial parks, corporate-like technical centers, and corporate partnerships would facilitate this arrangement. As with existing professional degree programs, students would not normally rely on grants and fellowships but would instead look to substantially higher lifetime earnings to pay their own way. The attractiveness of this strategy depends partly on whether the current employment of S&E PhDs could be partly satisfied instead by holders of these new professional doctoral degrees.”
To me that is just an academic hodgepodge of ideas that reads like wishful thinking.
I suggest that if you wish to make your point clearly, perhaps expand it into a blog article, and back it up with the facts you have access to.
My point isn't that any of the RAND prescriptions are necessarily or specifically desirable. It's that the system, as it currently works, is not attractive to people who have a choice. Universities will need to innovate to make these degree paths attractive to people with choice. Employers will need to innovate to make this career path attractive to people with choice. Exactly how they do this is not up to me. And it may turn out that they can't or won't. There's a reason you can't find a high quality used Mercedes with under 10k miles for $2,000. The market has answered your question. No need for the government to ask again on your behalf.
Similarly, I don't think we should have the government "solve" the problem by creating a worker population that is denied this choice by force of law. I support immigration, but not immigration where universities and employers get to decide what the person is allowed to study and what kind of jobs the person is allowed to work.
Similarly, I don't think we should have the government "solve" the problem by creating a worker population that is denied this choice by force of law. I support immigration, but not immigration where universities and employers get to decide what the person is allowed to study and what kind of jobs the person is allowed to work.
The Master's degree is already a "professional" counterpart to STEM PhD's. So if folks are dropping out of graduate studies with "only" a MS in a STEM field, it's not clear why this should be considered a problem, or a signal of "abuse".
Possibly none, as long we don't construct an immigration system under the assumption it's a crisis that there aren't enough PhD graduates in STEM fields, and don't claim this "crisis" is a good reason to restrict people's immigration rights through force of law based on whether they complete a PhD in a government-approved field.
If the market's answer is "don't do a PhD", that's fine by me. The problem is when people who want to hire STEM PhDs don't like the answer and have the government ask again on their behalf.
If the market's answer is "don't do a PhD", that's fine by me. The problem is when people who want to hire STEM PhDs don't like the answer and have the government ask again on their behalf.
This seems to be opportunistically timed with Biden’s immigration bill that will give all PhDs in STEM from a US institution a green card. Biden has already asked that the Republicans pass the law by piecemeal. As someone about to finish their PhD, I’m hopeful this portion will pass.
Someone from Oxford University is out, someone with a PhD from Yoknapatawha State College is in. In other words, the bill is a bailout for struggling US institutions, but this would be expected from our current president.
Why does the United States feel entitled to drain the intellectual capital of countries that are least able to afford losing it? These discussions always end up going on about "the good of the country" but never about the good of other countries or the good of humanity. "The good of the country" really means for the good of the top 0.001%, which is where the purported benefit mostly ends up.
If the US is going to hoover up all of the intellectual capital it can, it at least needs to acknowledge that this is harming other countries and accept some of the burden of repairing some of the damage this causes without attaching a bunch of strings that primarily benefits the US. Don't be surprised when so much of the world is resentful of you if you keep up this type of behavior.
If the US is going to hoover up all of the intellectual capital it can, it at least needs to acknowledge that this is harming other countries and accept some of the burden of repairing some of the damage this causes without attaching a bunch of strings that primarily benefits the US. Don't be surprised when so much of the world is resentful of you if you keep up this type of behavior.
Not a good take. These individuals have the choice of where to go. What should we say? You can’t come?
Also - don’t forget that many immigrants (both high and low skilled) send money home. This can improve outcomes over time in their home countries.
Finally... ignoring a language barrier, what’s stopping you from moving to one of these countries? If you have valuable skills and they are suffering brain drain, you can potentially help.
If you don’t want to or if that sounds ridiculous, now you understand the position of a high skilled resident of one of those countries
Also - don’t forget that many immigrants (both high and low skilled) send money home. This can improve outcomes over time in their home countries.
Finally... ignoring a language barrier, what’s stopping you from moving to one of these countries? If you have valuable skills and they are suffering brain drain, you can potentially help.
If you don’t want to or if that sounds ridiculous, now you understand the position of a high skilled resident of one of those countries
> Not a good take. These individuals have the choice of where to go. What should we say? You can’t come?
The US does say "you can't come" to most people who aren't highly skilled, so this choice of where to go comes out of the aligned interests of the US and the migrant, not a general principle.
The US does say "you can't come" to most people who aren't highly skilled, so this choice of where to go comes out of the aligned interests of the US and the migrant, not a general principle.
In fact, the US says "you can't come" to highly educated would-be immigrants who don't have a STEM designation.
I have the same reply to the parent of your comment: we do and I think that’s a really bad move on our part!
I agree that we say you can’t come and feel it is a terrible mistake to do so. I would favor much more liberal immigration policies and guest worker programs at all skill levels. This particular paper is about more skilled migrants.
>Why does the United States feel entitled
Why do you feel people choosing to go to the US is the US feeling entitled? Do you believe these 'brains' aren't capable of assessing their own self interest?
>These discussions always end up going on about "the good of the country" but never about the good of other countries or the good of humanity.
That's because you're proposing restricting people from attending foreign universities 'for the good of humanity' which is on its face ridiculous.
> "The good of the country" really means for the good of the top 0.001%, which is where the purported benefit mostly ends up.
And those 'brains' who choose to go where they want get no benefit? Who are you to tell them what to do?
>If the US is going to hoover up all of the intellectual capital it can, it at least needs to acknowledge that this is harming other countries and accept some of the burden of repairing some of the damage this causes without attaching a bunch of strings that primarily benefits the US.
The US now owes other countries for accepting immigration, apparently. This is of course insane.
Why do you feel people choosing to go to the US is the US feeling entitled? Do you believe these 'brains' aren't capable of assessing their own self interest?
>These discussions always end up going on about "the good of the country" but never about the good of other countries or the good of humanity.
That's because you're proposing restricting people from attending foreign universities 'for the good of humanity' which is on its face ridiculous.
> "The good of the country" really means for the good of the top 0.001%, which is where the purported benefit mostly ends up.
And those 'brains' who choose to go where they want get no benefit? Who are you to tell them what to do?
>If the US is going to hoover up all of the intellectual capital it can, it at least needs to acknowledge that this is harming other countries and accept some of the burden of repairing some of the damage this causes without attaching a bunch of strings that primarily benefits the US.
The US now owes other countries for accepting immigration, apparently. This is of course insane.
Does the “intellectual capital” not have agency? Are they being forced?
At a blush I agreed with you, but then I thought a bit more, and now disagree.
The presumption is that the local intellects will be developed, if just developed nations would not take them. This is not as likely.
The counter, where foreign educated people come back to home country is. This way the birth nation gains the foreign nation's intellect.(plenty of anecdotal evidence)
Will this be the case all the time? Of course not. The follow up question is, how many will return, where is the break even, where is the educational level, etc
The presumption is that the local intellects will be developed, if just developed nations would not take them. This is not as likely.
The counter, where foreign educated people come back to home country is. This way the birth nation gains the foreign nation's intellect.(plenty of anecdotal evidence)
Will this be the case all the time? Of course not. The follow up question is, how many will return, where is the break even, where is the educational level, etc
I think hundreds of millions of units of “intellectual capital” (these are human beings with the right to make life choices) would wait in line to get hoovered up by the US
[deleted]
your assuming that these 'brains' will find a use in their home country, and that's where your wrong.
1) no one is forcing people to move out of their country. it's a personal choice of each of these individuals.
2) as a real life example, in my home country I know of plenty smart people with or without diplomas that ended up in jobs that have nowhere near close of a place to use their 'brains' even if they really want to and not from a lack of trying just a lack of opportunities.
what good is having having a sharp brain and a PhD if the only local job opportunities are: door to door salesman, fruits and vegetables vendor, cashier, farmer, goat herder, working in a call center.
1) no one is forcing people to move out of their country. it's a personal choice of each of these individuals.
2) as a real life example, in my home country I know of plenty smart people with or without diplomas that ended up in jobs that have nowhere near close of a place to use their 'brains' even if they really want to and not from a lack of trying just a lack of opportunities.
what good is having having a sharp brain and a PhD if the only local job opportunities are: door to door salesman, fruits and vegetables vendor, cashier, farmer, goat herder, working in a call center.
In India there is a saying - "Brain drain is better than brain in drain".
> Why does the United States feel entitled to drain the intellectual capital of countries that are least able to afford losing it?
Why do other countries feel entitled to drain all the manufacturing jobs and mid wage work from the United States' middle class and working class citizens that are least able to afford losing it? Competition creates winners and losers in various sectors and people go to where opportunities are. That's just life.
Why do other countries feel entitled to drain all the manufacturing jobs and mid wage work from the United States' middle class and working class citizens that are least able to afford losing it? Competition creates winners and losers in various sectors and people go to where opportunities are. That's just life.
>Why do other countries feel entitled to drain all the manufacturing jobs and mid wage work from the United States'
Blame U.S corporations and U.S policy for that. The other countries that provide such labor aren't the ones forcing the U.S to do that.
Blame U.S corporations and U.S policy for that. The other countries that provide such labor aren't the ones forcing the U.S to do that.
Blame ex-US companies and ex-US tax policy for ex-US brain drain. The US isn't forcing people to come here in the same way that China / Singapore / India / Vietnam aren't forcing US corps to shift production there; people follow incentives.
The so called developing nations are often dictatorships that want to get rid of their "intellectual capital" because it destabilizes the dictator's position.