Heavy Recruitment of Chinese Students Sows Discord on U.S. Campuses(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Heavy Recruitment of Chinese Students Sows Discord on U.S. Campuses
http://www.wsj.com/articles/heavy-recruitment-of-chinese-students-sows-discord-on-u-s-campuses-1458224413
192 comments
To counter your rather tasteless and problematic description of Chinese students with my own anecdote:
During my MSc I studied alongside numerous Chinese people (some of whom are now my work colleagues), all of whom exhibited none of the antisocial characteristics you describe. I also witnessed and heard of the racist things people sometimes said to them (cartoonish ni haos, dog-eating comments, etc). Those were gross and so is your description. Really, students from China will dilute the reputation of your degree?!
During my MSc I studied alongside numerous Chinese people (some of whom are now my work colleagues), all of whom exhibited none of the antisocial characteristics you describe. I also witnessed and heard of the racist things people sometimes said to them (cartoonish ni haos, dog-eating comments, etc). Those were gross and so is your description. Really, students from China will dilute the reputation of your degree?!
Your selective and inaccurate editing of the host comment is dishonest,and the emotionally charged adjectives you use make it sound like you're more interested in virtue signaling than having a discussion.
The mistake you're making is that you think one anecdote cancels out another and makes it invalid. Both anecdotal experiences are probably true. Anyone urging us to reject one recounted experience as "gross" and "problematic" is in favor of shutting out information that might be accurate but doesn't fit a preconceived agenda.
In other words, not just a liar, but someone actively pressuring others to deny their own experiences. I can't think of a worse person than that, no matter what worthy cause they think it's in the service of.
The mistake you're making is that you think one anecdote cancels out another and makes it invalid. Both anecdotal experiences are probably true. Anyone urging us to reject one recounted experience as "gross" and "problematic" is in favor of shutting out information that might be accurate but doesn't fit a preconceived agenda.
In other words, not just a liar, but someone actively pressuring others to deny their own experiences. I can't think of a worse person than that, no matter what worthy cause they think it's in the service of.
Why tasteless and problematic? Do you think it's biased/untrue?
Racial slurs ("dog eating") and observed behavior (littering) are very different things.
> Really, students from China will dilute the reputation of your degree?!
full context: > not kicking them out or punishing them for what they did negatively impacted everyone's college experience, and will continue to dilute the reputation of my degree.
Racial slurs ("dog eating") and observed behavior (littering) are very different things.
> Really, students from China will dilute the reputation of your degree?!
full context: > not kicking them out or punishing them for what they did negatively impacted everyone's college experience, and will continue to dilute the reputation of my degree.
I wish I could downvote this blatant racism.
Well, perhaps I should make it clear that this was how the vast majority of international chinese undergraduate and graduate students I encountered behaved. I have a few friends who were kinder, but I'd argue it's a cultural difference where those that I encountered valued human life and fairness far less than I ever expected.
Maybe American students have gotten better since I attended college, but when I was there I saw American students do all of those things.
I steered clear of the greek sustem, you may be right, although I thought my university started kicking out fraternities that wouldn't abide by the moral code.
Again, it wasn't limited to the greek system (in fact the greek system had more accountability than most which prevented certain behaviors, but not others).
Edit window has expired, so I will say this
I do not, and never will, simply assume something about someone. My goal was to present a different perspective than the article which could be misinterpreted to view international chinese students as victims, and to provide a different opinion on their impact on college campuses. Cheating caused all sorts of issues, especially when it went unpunished.
I want to note a similar sentiment, esp. with my above comment. I'm totally in favor of allowing (and encouraging) international students to come to American universities.
But I also think international students can be victims if they don't have the language skills to engage with the rest of the school. At least with Chinese students, many come to America because they can't get into good Chinese universities but are still rich. I think students who spend 4 years drifting in a school, not making friends outside of other rich international students, and not engaging with professors or courses, are seriously disserved by the university. Imagine doing 4 years of college in, say, France, without speaking the language - how much could you have benefited vs attending a school in your home country?
But I also think international students can be victims if they don't have the language skills to engage with the rest of the school. At least with Chinese students, many come to America because they can't get into good Chinese universities but are still rich. I think students who spend 4 years drifting in a school, not making friends outside of other rich international students, and not engaging with professors or courses, are seriously disserved by the university. Imagine doing 4 years of college in, say, France, without speaking the language - how much could you have benefited vs attending a school in your home country?
As a counterpoint, many of the international students I encountered weren't particularly interested in interacting with students from other backgrounds, or even particularly curious about America.
I do remember one student who may have fit the above description in undergrad. He had a heavy accent, (but that's never been a problem with me, most accents are pretty consistent and you can adapt quickly) wasn't doing too well with his studies. He was difficult to engage with in general. However, I was fairly sure he was enjoying the party life when he wasn't in class, and he wasn't interested in interacting with me, or from what I saw, anyone who wasn't from the same background.
I do remember one student who may have fit the above description in undergrad. He had a heavy accent, (but that's never been a problem with me, most accents are pretty consistent and you can adapt quickly) wasn't doing too well with his studies. He was difficult to engage with in general. However, I was fairly sure he was enjoying the party life when he wasn't in class, and he wasn't interested in interacting with me, or from what I saw, anyone who wasn't from the same background.
I see this a lot though from my perspective it's more a trait of very wealthy kids than just the Chinese. Wealthy Indian students as well as Americans generally act like entitled assholes (not always, but more often than the typical student).
I think it's a symptom of a life of privilege, probably having servants to do anything menial and not used to not getting what they want at all times.
I think it's a symptom of a life of privilege, probably having servants to do anything menial and not used to not getting what they want at all times.
The second part of my comment was in fact racist, and I apologize. Thinking back to the effect rampant cheating and stealing had on my university class, it could've been started by anyone. As others have pointed out, there are people from all cultures, (including American students) who behave in this way. Some people point to wealth as a predictor, and my own experiences would suggest a correlation, but there are plenty of people from all walks of life who will burn everything down for so little.
To be fair, more and more state legislatures have been treating Public universities like private corporations when it comes to ponying up the money come budget time. It's not like this is coming from nowhere.
Foreign students being bad at English is a concern - it's a disservice to the international students, teachers, and other students if a substantial subset of students can't participate effectively.
it's also a disservice to domestic students- when your TA/lecturer barely speaks english- they can explain important concepts very easily to chinese students directly in chinese in office hours- but try talking to them in english? You'd have a hard time communicating.
English speaking students can actually be at a disadvantage in this sort of environment.
English speaking students can actually be at a disadvantage in this sort of environment.
Actually I recall an Asian math teacher who used basic English but did so to great effect. Her way of breaking problems down really helped me grasp them more effectively. Of course other non-native instructors were not as good, so I'd guess it depends.
And also to the students they TA.
I've had group projects where I couldn't communicate effectively with half of my team.
I've had projects where I was the only fluent English speaker, AND the rest of the team all spoke another language (the same one) and decided to communicate almost exclusively in that language.
The same happended to me. It was for an Accounting class in Australia. They switched to mandarin to make it easier on everyone else.
On the other hand, what a great opportunity to learn another language!
A couple of weeks of duolinguo while using the language for daily talks will do the trick
A couple of weeks of duolinguo while using the language for daily talks will do the trick
I think it's great that colleges are preparing our young people for the challenges they'll be facing in the workforce.
That's the problem, colleges aren't supposed to be workforce preparation. They're supposed to be a place of higher learning. If students/TAs/professors can't communicate, learning and intellectual discussion (the entire point of a university) isn't occurring.
I agree with you 100%, but my comment was a joke.
That's the problem, HackerNews comments aren't supposed to be humorous. They're supposed to be a place of higher discussion. If users/mods/OPs can't be serious, learning and intellectual discussion (the entire point of HackerNews) isn't occurring.
There's a big difference between humor-as-end (reddit) and humor-as-means (HN, ideally). I'm the first to complain when HN feels like reddit, but I found the comment insightful and incisive.
Their use of irony to make their point wasn't at all antithetical to the serious, intellectual discussions you're asking for.
Pedantry, on the other hand, is much more likely to prohibit meaningful discussion.
Their use of irony to make their point wasn't at all antithetical to the serious, intellectual discussions you're asking for.
Pedantry, on the other hand, is much more likely to prohibit meaningful discussion.
> Pedantry, on the other hand, is much more likely to prohibit meaningful discussion
So are accusations of pedantry when you don't get the humour of a joke ;-)
Your parent was clearly not being serious.
So are accusations of pedantry when you don't get the humour of a joke ;-)
Your parent was clearly not being serious.
This whole thread has devolved into a Poe's law fugue.
Your comment made me spit all over my laptop. I'm just letting you know because I think I'd appreciate knowing if something I wrote caused such a reaction.
I actually worry a lot about whether or not a comment I make or want to make is "HN enough" or "too much like a reddit comment", what with the emphasis on comments contributing to the conversation. Maybe "a lot" is too strong for what I feel. It feels like a lot for internet comments.
I hope expressing this anxiety somehow contributes. :P
I actually worry a lot about whether or not a comment I make or want to make is "HN enough" or "too much like a reddit comment", what with the emphasis on comments contributing to the conversation. Maybe "a lot" is too strong for what I feel. It feels like a lot for internet comments.
I hope expressing this anxiety somehow contributes. :P
Thanks, and hopefully it wasn't sugary. Keyboards that stick suck. ;)
I used to feel that way, then I settled on a simple set of rules. My comment should be serious and make sense to the parent (and if it is I don't really care how on-topic it is, some of the best conversations are tangents), or if it's not that serious, it needs to attempt to be a little insightful (humor is great for bypassing people's preconceptions). If I have something that's neither of those, I'll only submit it if I can contribute something additionally along with it that follows the prior guidelines. Every few days I'll erase the comment I've typed into the box (sometimes multiple paragraphs worth) after reflecting because it's either not relevant enough, too inflammatory, or will likely start a conversation I really don't feel like participating in. Different people have different criteria, but this helps me feel like I'm contributing, which matters to me, since I get so much pleasure out of HN.
I used to feel that way, then I settled on a simple set of rules. My comment should be serious and make sense to the parent (and if it is I don't really care how on-topic it is, some of the best conversations are tangents), or if it's not that serious, it needs to attempt to be a little insightful (humor is great for bypassing people's preconceptions). If I have something that's neither of those, I'll only submit it if I can contribute something additionally along with it that follows the prior guidelines. Every few days I'll erase the comment I've typed into the box (sometimes multiple paragraphs worth) after reflecting because it's either not relevant enough, too inflammatory, or will likely start a conversation I really don't feel like participating in. Different people have different criteria, but this helps me feel like I'm contributing, which matters to me, since I get so much pleasure out of HN.
I also want to thank you. For making me bust out some google-fu to figure out what "Poe's law" and a "fugue" are. And for the lulz of course. That goes with out saying.
>That's the problem, HackerNews comments aren't supposed to be humorous.
I don't know where you got this impression but it's not true
I don't know where you got this impression but it's not true
Is this a joke? I can't tell...
The humor was pretty obvious to me.
Humor vs. HN. Humor loses.
I moved to the U.S. at the age of 14, from Shanghai. Since then I've done a pretty solid job integrating into the American culture (not much a choice, not exactly that many international students in my Dallas suburb high school), got an undergrad degree, made many friends. I now see myself as half American half Chinese. I spend more time on Reddit than I do on Weibo, and I use Facebook a lot more than WeChat. I can still write Chinese business emails and my favorite authors are Jinyong and John Irving.
My half-brother, who came to the U.S. at the age of 18, is a totally different story. He's smarter than I am, being a math olympiad competitor and got himself an internship at Google as a Freshman and all that jazz. However I noticed that he's done a much poorer job at integrating with the American culture. He doesn't browse Reddit, or HackerNews, or TechCrunch, even though he's into tech and startups. He loves Anime but watches them subbed in Chinese. He watches Chinese streaming sites instead of Netflix. As a 20 year old he doesn't know most of the popular memes on western social sites. He doesn't use Facebook, at all.
Some of that has to do with personal motivation, as in why would I go out and make friends with Americans when 20% of my high school classmates are now in the same Ivy-League school as I am? Some of that is due to technology advancement. Due to the internet it's very easy to live in a personal bubble of your preferred language, culture, and acquiantences, even if it's 10000 miles away from home. He doesn't know whether he even wants to stay in the U.S. after graduation, and I'm sure he literally feels much more at home when he goes back to China.
The last factor may also be the state of the Chinese economy. Early immigrants came with the impression that "if you wanna make it, you have to participate in the American rat race", but in the case of my brother and his friends, they are interested in tech startup, but they have very little interest in the Silicon Valley tech scene. Due to family connections and other backgrounds they think they can do something much more meaningful if they move back to China and raise money and achieve success. Just 10 years ago that kind of thought is unthinkable.
Personally I don't want to see American colleges, which I think are still on average the best in the world, to just turn into diploma mills. I really wish that these young Chinese students can grasp the opportunity and actually learn about some of the deeper culture of the country they are (temporarily) staying in. The world economy is only going to become more intertwined, we need more people who can bridge the gaps.
My half-brother, who came to the U.S. at the age of 18, is a totally different story. He's smarter than I am, being a math olympiad competitor and got himself an internship at Google as a Freshman and all that jazz. However I noticed that he's done a much poorer job at integrating with the American culture. He doesn't browse Reddit, or HackerNews, or TechCrunch, even though he's into tech and startups. He loves Anime but watches them subbed in Chinese. He watches Chinese streaming sites instead of Netflix. As a 20 year old he doesn't know most of the popular memes on western social sites. He doesn't use Facebook, at all.
Some of that has to do with personal motivation, as in why would I go out and make friends with Americans when 20% of my high school classmates are now in the same Ivy-League school as I am? Some of that is due to technology advancement. Due to the internet it's very easy to live in a personal bubble of your preferred language, culture, and acquiantences, even if it's 10000 miles away from home. He doesn't know whether he even wants to stay in the U.S. after graduation, and I'm sure he literally feels much more at home when he goes back to China.
The last factor may also be the state of the Chinese economy. Early immigrants came with the impression that "if you wanna make it, you have to participate in the American rat race", but in the case of my brother and his friends, they are interested in tech startup, but they have very little interest in the Silicon Valley tech scene. Due to family connections and other backgrounds they think they can do something much more meaningful if they move back to China and raise money and achieve success. Just 10 years ago that kind of thought is unthinkable.
Personally I don't want to see American colleges, which I think are still on average the best in the world, to just turn into diploma mills. I really wish that these young Chinese students can grasp the opportunity and actually learn about some of the deeper culture of the country they are (temporarily) staying in. The world economy is only going to become more intertwined, we need more people who can bridge the gaps.
> much poorer job at integrating with the American culture
> doesn't browse Reddit, or HackerNews, or TechCrunch, even though he's into tech and startups
> he doesn't know most of the popular memes on western social sites
> doesn't use Facebook, at all
Is this what "American" means?
> doesn't browse Reddit, or HackerNews, or TechCrunch, even though he's into tech and startups
> he doesn't know most of the popular memes on western social sites
> doesn't use Facebook, at all
Is this what "American" means?
Those are just some very limited examples. Being "American" means a lot of things, in fact it's very difficult to define what being American really means, considering the diversity of culture here. For a country with only a couple hundred years of history, the depth of culture and society here is truly astonishing.
Sorry for not being able to provide better examples, but I guess if there is a Turing test for "being American", I think I would have done OK at it.
Sorry for not being able to provide better examples, but I guess if there is a Turing test for "being American", I think I would have done OK at it.
No, but it is what '20 year old American nerd' means
i suspect no more than engaging with the chinese equivalents makes someone chinese. but then this seems to miss the point.
Cut him some slack. According to his comment he's 16. He's viewing it from a high school lens. Whether or not being an "American" 20-something year old requires you to do what was mentioned above, some of his points are interesting.
Immigrants make choices constantly -- subconsciously or otherwise -- on how much to indulge in the local culture, and how much to stick to your familiar roots. Unfortunately, there can be strong feedback loops that develop quickly; one immigrant group is tightly knit because they find it harder to bridge the gap and the gap gets harder to bridge because Americans find the immigrant groups "too ethnically knit" and closed to bother. Not to mention that there's a natural tendency to be a little apprehensive towards someone new with their own set of customs.
Immigrants make choices constantly -- subconsciously or otherwise -- on how much to indulge in the local culture, and how much to stick to your familiar roots. Unfortunately, there can be strong feedback loops that develop quickly; one immigrant group is tightly knit because they find it harder to bridge the gap and the gap gets harder to bridge because Americans find the immigrant groups "too ethnically knit" and closed to bother. Not to mention that there's a natural tendency to be a little apprehensive towards someone new with their own set of customs.
I don't know whether you are just being facetious, but I'm not 16. I was simply comparing my brother to other "engineering nerds" in his age group, and I find him sharing very limited hobbies or interests when compared to kids who grew up here. It's not like he doesn't like social networks, he just doesn't use American ones. It's not like he doesn't watch TV shows, but just not the American ones. It's not like he doesn't eat out, just that he strongly prefers Chinese food.
My examples were very limited, they are only used to illustrate a point, but not to make a broad statement.
My examples were very limited, they are only used to illustrate a point, but not to make a broad statement.
I think the bigger point is that high school is a bigger influence on how 'assimilated' people are. College is definitely a time of personal growth, but I think high school is even more so a time of growth.
Maybe at 14, your friends aren't locked into FB/WeChat/etc, and the network effect isn't as strong to attract you to one cultural set or another. The other theory I have is that with how much larger colleges are, and in particular how many more international students there are at the collegiate level, there is less pressure to 'assimilate' and find 'American' friends. I've definitely noticed that international students hang out with other internationals a lot in college. It's really common to hear Portugese or Korean in my library, for example. Having some support base probably makes it easier to hang out only with those who are super similar to you.
Maybe at 14, your friends aren't locked into FB/WeChat/etc, and the network effect isn't as strong to attract you to one cultural set or another. The other theory I have is that with how much larger colleges are, and in particular how many more international students there are at the collegiate level, there is less pressure to 'assimilate' and find 'American' friends. I've definitely noticed that international students hang out with other internationals a lot in college. It's really common to hear Portugese or Korean in my library, for example. Having some support base probably makes it easier to hang out only with those who are super similar to you.
[deleted]
I see your point but personally I think what your brother is doing is awesome. Assimilation is a two way street and I think American culture benefits when it assimilates aspects of other cultures. I imagine your brother is exposing others around him to a culture they wouldn't have experienced otherwise. If people are better off when exposed to new and different people and cultures, then I think he's doing them a service!
[deleted]
By those standard I am only 40% American (Midwestern born and raised man).
I read one book by jin yong that was translated to English and loved it! Unfortunately only a couple have been translated.
If you happen to make it your life goal to translate the rest, I am forever in your debt! ;-)
If you happen to make it your life goal to translate the rest, I am forever in your debt! ;-)
I teach Intro to Computer Science to (mostly) economics majors.
I currently have four Chinese students (out of 45 total), all of whom go through the right motions. They sit in the front of the class, they ask questions after lecture, etc... The types of things your mother would tell you to do so the professor "knows your name".
All four exhibit a significant language barrier. Although... I don't think that is the only thing hampering their performance.
I personally know how hard it can be to learn in a different language environment (I took a university class held in Finland and it was tough to say the least). Luckily, it was a math class and I was able to eke out good marks.
At the risk of sounding cynical, and not wanting to paint a picture of all Chinese students, I get the vibe from mine that they are really just there to get a degree, not to learn AT ALL. Hey... so are many of my WASPy students, let's not kid ourselves. But it's something about the way my Chinese kids want accommodation solely by going through the motions, as if just showing up to class and sitting up front guarantees you an A. I just don't see the real effort on their behalf.
I currently have four Chinese students (out of 45 total), all of whom go through the right motions. They sit in the front of the class, they ask questions after lecture, etc... The types of things your mother would tell you to do so the professor "knows your name".
All four exhibit a significant language barrier. Although... I don't think that is the only thing hampering their performance.
I personally know how hard it can be to learn in a different language environment (I took a university class held in Finland and it was tough to say the least). Luckily, it was a math class and I was able to eke out good marks.
At the risk of sounding cynical, and not wanting to paint a picture of all Chinese students, I get the vibe from mine that they are really just there to get a degree, not to learn AT ALL. Hey... so are many of my WASPy students, let's not kid ourselves. But it's something about the way my Chinese kids want accommodation solely by going through the motions, as if just showing up to class and sitting up front guarantees you an A. I just don't see the real effort on their behalf.
Do you have any actual examples of their poor academic behaviour, or are you just speculating? Because it sounds like you're singling them out for being Chinese right now.
In Australia international students, a large proportion from China have built a reputation on endemic cheating. There is also culpability on the institutional side as universities allow them through degrees with different set of standards as the uni's appreciate full fee paying international students vs subsidised government paid national students. I met my wife, a foreigner at an Australian uni and she absolutely recognised her preferred treatment as a personal anecdote;
A quick Google shows this example article. Many more if you want to research this topic yourself vs imply someone is simply being racist: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/academics-accuse-un...
And I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to tar all international students as doing this. More so it's a good topic to discuss, to stop this behavior and protect the reputation and achievement of those students that do work hard and truly earn their degree and other academic accolades. But at least at Australian universities this is a massively widespread problem, which uni's dont want to seem to deal with and it would not surprise me if this was more international.
Edit: Spelling
A quick Google shows this example article. Many more if you want to research this topic yourself vs imply someone is simply being racist: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/academics-accuse-un...
And I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to tar all international students as doing this. More so it's a good topic to discuss, to stop this behavior and protect the reputation and achievement of those students that do work hard and truly earn their degree and other academic accolades. But at least at Australian universities this is a massively widespread problem, which uni's dont want to seem to deal with and it would not surprise me if this was more international.
Edit: Spelling
I went to UQ and they would specifically have to inform international students (primarily Chinese from what I saw) that cheating is not allowed.
Cheating is not what OP was talking about. You are mentioning a completely different issue.
Also, having been through university myself, cheating is completely widespread through domestic students as well. I'd like to see some statistics that international students cheat more, rather than anecdotes.
Also, having been through university myself, cheating is completely widespread through domestic students as well. I'd like to see some statistics that international students cheat more, rather than anecdotes.
so basically, you want to see statistics on "lying"? just have a gander at the websites that sell questions. I can't begin to tell you how many there are just for technical certs (cisco, McrSft, etc...). and business is booming. follow the news in India and you'll see all the "cheating student" stories you want.
The issue goes to the fact that grades/school prestige are being used to imply that a student will be a solid addition to a company, yet everyone wants to espouse "Meritocracy" - not realizing that only comes after you're in the "real world" and you've got a few years worth of jobs on your resume/CV.
In life, as in classes there is the way the book tells you how it SHOULD be, and then there is the reality of how it actually is. Sadly, students are unprepared for what they will experience in the "real world". Part of it is the school's fault, but also the students bare some responsibility when they insist on wearing rose-colored glasses.
The issue goes to the fact that grades/school prestige are being used to imply that a student will be a solid addition to a company, yet everyone wants to espouse "Meritocracy" - not realizing that only comes after you're in the "real world" and you've got a few years worth of jobs on your resume/CV.
In life, as in classes there is the way the book tells you how it SHOULD be, and then there is the reality of how it actually is. Sadly, students are unprepared for what they will experience in the "real world". Part of it is the school's fault, but also the students bare some responsibility when they insist on wearing rose-colored glasses.
I believe you have misinterpreted my post.
He teaches the class. He knows the grades. Do you think he's going to share them on a public forum?
I am a she.
The only thing OP mentioned was that something felt "off," without actually bringing up anything substantial. This is purely racism.
I generally would like to see a more patriotic (real patriotism: none of this flags and hoo-rah silliness) approach to student recruitment and scholarships on campuses. I believe American schools can produce excellent students. I think the US has some very high-class aspirations and values, and care should be taken to preserve them and to grow practices such as tenure and free speech which let the best of US values flourish.
Having a heavy mix of people from places with other aspirations and values will dilute this system.
Of course: the language issue is a big deal. I've had fellow-students that couldn't speak or understand a word of verbal English - in graduate school!!! But their written was adequate. I don't believe they should have been accepted - they should have been kindly redirected to their national universities. Most international students don't have this issue, of course! Most are very fluent in English, even if they have an accent.
One very tangible aspect of the situation is that international students often pay cash and are charged out the ying-yang to attend. Perhaps if our fine federal government mandated public universities have equal costs for national and international students, universities wouldn't feel quite so incentivized to attract the (often extremely talented!) international students.
Having a heavy mix of people from places with other aspirations and values will dilute this system.
Of course: the language issue is a big deal. I've had fellow-students that couldn't speak or understand a word of verbal English - in graduate school!!! But their written was adequate. I don't believe they should have been accepted - they should have been kindly redirected to their national universities. Most international students don't have this issue, of course! Most are very fluent in English, even if they have an accent.
One very tangible aspect of the situation is that international students often pay cash and are charged out the ying-yang to attend. Perhaps if our fine federal government mandated public universities have equal costs for national and international students, universities wouldn't feel quite so incentivized to attract the (often extremely talented!) international students.
This sounds like a good idea - perhaps it could be pushed even further - why can't we do more to discourage students from attaining out-of-state universities?
Admitting a heavy mix of people from places like Missouri and Alabama will dilute the wonderful high-class aspirations and values that you see in a place like California, New York, or Washington.
Admitting a heavy mix of people from places like Missouri and Alabama will dilute the wonderful high-class aspirations and values that you see in a place like California, New York, or Washington.
Well, there are terrible neighbourhoods in California. And for Texan universities, some of the locals have accents. I would restrict it good neighbourhoods and well spoken gentlemen/women. This should avoid all the dilution. /s
I think you missed his point.
In places like Alabama, nearly everyone will have an accent. The implication being that anyone with a southern accent, which can be difficult to understand, would cause what you are terming "dilution".
I don't know? My own belief is that making New Yorkers go to school with people from Alabama provides an additional dimension to the education for all concerned. I believe there is value in it. Reasonable people are free to disagree of course.
In places like Alabama, nearly everyone will have an accent. The implication being that anyone with a southern accent, which can be difficult to understand, would cause what you are terming "dilution".
I don't know? My own belief is that making New Yorkers go to school with people from Alabama provides an additional dimension to the education for all concerned. I believe there is value in it. Reasonable people are free to disagree of course.
Patriotism died under the past few decades of left-leaning culture. Entire generations seem to believe that America has the worst culture on Earth and is singlehandedly responsible for all of the evil in the world. You can't assimilate foreigners when you don't have any respect for your own culture. You can't assimilate foreigners when you view assimilation as a negative goal.
On another note, if universities can't assimilate wealthy, educated Chinese, no wonder Europe is having a refugee crisis.
On another note, if universities can't assimilate wealthy, educated Chinese, no wonder Europe is having a refugee crisis.
I've had classmates (also in graduate school) that didn't even have adequate writing skills. Attempts to communicate via writing required a lot of guessing and hoping. They did have some small verbal ability, but it was extremely limited. Any sort of complex communication with them was essentially impossible.
The trend in the article sounds like it is a bit parochial or patriotic in a bad way: Exploiting foreign students' wealth to subsidize the domestic students' experiences, without necessarily giving the foreigners an experience that matches what they're paying.
It seems to me that these international populations are being used as tools in the financial arms race of colleges.
That doesn't mean to say that this international population is all or even most concerned with entering US schools genuinely for the experience, values, and education (as opposed to the diploma or prestige or so on). Exploitation can go both ways, I guess.
It seems to me that these international populations are being used as tools in the financial arms race of colleges.
That doesn't mean to say that this international population is all or even most concerned with entering US schools genuinely for the experience, values, and education (as opposed to the diploma or prestige or so on). Exploitation can go both ways, I guess.
Note to self: If you ever go to study something at an American university, pretend to be one of those deaf-mutes.
This is the result of the federal government (congress) abdicating its responsibility during the recession. They allowed state budget cuts to affect education, and to this day schools are doing everything they can to bridge the gap from overseas students.
The great recession didn't just create a lost generation from un/under employment among millennials. It also denied many access to an education at all, and saddled the rest with mountains of debt.
The great recession didn't just create a lost generation from un/under employment among millennials. It also denied many access to an education at all, and saddled the rest with mountains of debt.
Umm, no. The opportunity exists because the economies of India and China are growing, and the elites of those countries emphasize education. Whether governments cut their budgets or not, universities will grab such an opportunity with both hands. To me, it appears like the budget cuts are just a pretext. Do a thought experiment for me: Assume that the government never cut university budgets. Yet the universities are competing with each other and need money to out compete. China and India come along, with lots of rich kids. This is like finding a 10-dollar note on the sidewalk. Of course they'll pick it up. There are a few things these universities are doing: 1. tie up with local universities (NYU Abu Dhabi, CMU China, etc.), 2. encourage more applications from abroad.
Other than the cultural friction, etc. I don't see any reason why universities pursuing foreign students is immoral or unethical. They already do this at some level by courting out-of-state student fans via strong/popular sports programs, etc.
Edit: CMU-Sun Yat Sen tie up: https://jie.cmu.edu/ Bigger list here: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/420/foreign-campuses.html
Other than the cultural friction, etc. I don't see any reason why universities pursuing foreign students is immoral or unethical. They already do this at some level by courting out-of-state student fans via strong/popular sports programs, etc.
Edit: CMU-Sun Yat Sen tie up: https://jie.cmu.edu/ Bigger list here: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/420/foreign-campuses.html
> The opportunity exists because the economies of India and China are growing, and the elites of those countries emphasize education.
That's a much smaller driving force than capital flight. The elites of those countries want to move assets and investment out of the country, so you buy the child a home (in-state tuition) you can move to after they graduate, send support money over to the student, etc.
The wealthy Chinese understand that US Dollars and the American are a more stable platform over the next few decades than China (which isn't terribly likely to exist as presently constituted by that point).
When Japanese nationals were buying up American property left and right, Americans took it as a sign that the Japanese economy would grow rapidly forever, and they'd take over the world.
In reality, Japanese elites knew better than anyone what the future held, and wanted to tie up their wealth in American assets.
Capital flight is a major, major factor.
That's a much smaller driving force than capital flight. The elites of those countries want to move assets and investment out of the country, so you buy the child a home (in-state tuition) you can move to after they graduate, send support money over to the student, etc.
The wealthy Chinese understand that US Dollars and the American are a more stable platform over the next few decades than China (which isn't terribly likely to exist as presently constituted by that point).
When Japanese nationals were buying up American property left and right, Americans took it as a sign that the Japanese economy would grow rapidly forever, and they'd take over the world.
In reality, Japanese elites knew better than anyone what the future held, and wanted to tie up their wealth in American assets.
Capital flight is a major, major factor.
[Citation needed] for your capital flight claim.
It is not as simplistic as you think. Super rich people in China or India use similar financial instruments as those in the US to diversify, ensure good ROI, etc. Yes, US is a more stable economy. But there are smarter and more straightforward ways to tie yourself to the US growth rate than buying up a condo in Champaign, IL.
Also will it shock you to learn that people desire a US education because it is the best in the world? One way to think of it, if you can afford them: German luxury cars are among the best, so you buy a BMW or Merc; Italian sportscars are among the best, so you buy those; Milan and Paris fashion brands are among the best, so you buy those; likewise, US (along with UK 'Oxbridge') education is the best in the world so you go for that.
It is not as simplistic as you think. Super rich people in China or India use similar financial instruments as those in the US to diversify, ensure good ROI, etc. Yes, US is a more stable economy. But there are smarter and more straightforward ways to tie yourself to the US growth rate than buying up a condo in Champaign, IL.
Also will it shock you to learn that people desire a US education because it is the best in the world? One way to think of it, if you can afford them: German luxury cars are among the best, so you buy a BMW or Merc; Italian sportscars are among the best, so you buy those; Milan and Paris fashion brands are among the best, so you buy those; likewise, US (along with UK 'Oxbridge') education is the best in the world so you go for that.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CPXQS_v...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/china-s-ca...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-07/key-to-chi...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12134684/Time-r...
It's a fairly common symptom of a financial crisis, and putting your family up in a new country and loading up on assets there is one of the more outwardly visible symptoms of it. (Again, see Japan's history–the data's in the OP's article.)
China's zero-unemployment policy have created some incredibly unsustainable trends, and they know it. Meanwhile, Beijing has to figure out how it's going to keep a nation that would span about five time zones unified, when they have a wealth disparity like the world's never known.
India, meanwhile, is destined to remain incredibly capital poor, despite being able to feed itself pretty handily. If you're a wealthy Indian elite, you're capital rich but constrained by your local geography.
Combine in the negative-interest-rate policies many countries have adopted, and the money's absolutely going to migrate away from that (as low as rates are elsewhere, they're still higher).
Anyway, I don't think wealthy Chinese nationals are limiting themselves to buying a condo in Champaign, IL. But when you expatriate large amounts of currency, winding up with a house and a few supercars in the destination country isn't a rare phenomenon.
And yeah, the colleges are good, too, but they were also good when we had comparatively few Chinese students attending them, too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/china-s-ca...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-07/key-to-chi...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12134684/Time-r...
It's a fairly common symptom of a financial crisis, and putting your family up in a new country and loading up on assets there is one of the more outwardly visible symptoms of it. (Again, see Japan's history–the data's in the OP's article.)
China's zero-unemployment policy have created some incredibly unsustainable trends, and they know it. Meanwhile, Beijing has to figure out how it's going to keep a nation that would span about five time zones unified, when they have a wealth disparity like the world's never known.
India, meanwhile, is destined to remain incredibly capital poor, despite being able to feed itself pretty handily. If you're a wealthy Indian elite, you're capital rich but constrained by your local geography.
Combine in the negative-interest-rate policies many countries have adopted, and the money's absolutely going to migrate away from that (as low as rates are elsewhere, they're still higher).
Anyway, I don't think wealthy Chinese nationals are limiting themselves to buying a condo in Champaign, IL. But when you expatriate large amounts of currency, winding up with a house and a few supercars in the destination country isn't a rare phenomenon.
And yeah, the colleges are good, too, but they were also good when we had comparatively few Chinese students attending them, too.
Addressing your later edit:
> One way to think of it, if you can afford them: German luxury cars are among the best, so you buy a BMW or Merc; Italian sportscars are among the best, so you buy those; Milan and Paris fashion brands are among the best, so you buy those; likewise, US (along with UK 'Oxbridge') education is the best in the world so you go for that.
Sure, but that doesn't explain the recent influx from China. Some of it's the artificial prosperity they created in the pursuit of a zero-unemployment/zero-revolt policy, but the reason it's changing is because their ship is sinking.
When a given people suddenly avail themselves of BMWs or Mercs, Ferraris or Chanel bags, at astonishingly higher rates than ever before, it's not just because those items are the best available–they have been for decades–it's because there's now both the cash to fund such an appetite, and the motivation to do so.
> One way to think of it, if you can afford them: German luxury cars are among the best, so you buy a BMW or Merc; Italian sportscars are among the best, so you buy those; Milan and Paris fashion brands are among the best, so you buy those; likewise, US (along with UK 'Oxbridge') education is the best in the world so you go for that.
Sure, but that doesn't explain the recent influx from China. Some of it's the artificial prosperity they created in the pursuit of a zero-unemployment/zero-revolt policy, but the reason it's changing is because their ship is sinking.
When a given people suddenly avail themselves of BMWs or Mercs, Ferraris or Chanel bags, at astonishingly higher rates than ever before, it's not just because those items are the best available–they have been for decades–it's because there's now both the cash to fund such an appetite, and the motivation to do so.
Yeah, just look at the trade deficit:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
Unless China is just giving the US manufactured goods for free, that money has to be buying something.
Unless China is just giving the US manufactured goods for free, that money has to be buying something.
> This is the result of the federal government (congress) abdicating its responsibility
Is it Congress or the many citizens who insist on tax cuts and vote to defund higher ed? Many of the same people ridicule higher education.
If we want higher education available to all, we have to pay for it.
> during the recession
It happened before and after the recession; it's not really a consequence of the Great Recession. The GOP has pushed these policies for decades.
Is it Congress or the many citizens who insist on tax cuts and vote to defund higher ed? Many of the same people ridicule higher education.
If we want higher education available to all, we have to pay for it.
> during the recession
It happened before and after the recession; it's not really a consequence of the Great Recession. The GOP has pushed these policies for decades.
This isn't entirely true. Per-student budgeting at a number of state institutions is as high as it's ever been.
It's roughly a one for one replacement policy at the flagship campuses. For every out-of-state student attending UCLA/Berkeley/CalPoly*, an in-state student has been displaced.
California policy makers must assess the risk that California resident taxpayers simply lose their willingness to support these institutions or to support tax increases to support these institutions.
Maybe the existing trend to accept additional "full freight out of state" students is a sign that California residents have already lost their appetite for higher-ed supporting tax increases, a sign that the system has no choice but to start selling these class slots to the highest bidders.
California policy makers must assess the risk that California resident taxpayers simply lose their willingness to support these institutions or to support tax increases to support these institutions.
Maybe the existing trend to accept additional "full freight out of state" students is a sign that California residents have already lost their appetite for higher-ed supporting tax increases, a sign that the system has no choice but to start selling these class slots to the highest bidders.
> California policy makers must assess the risk that California resident taxpayers simply lose their willingness to support these institutions or to support tax increases to support these institutions.
The problem is the reverse: Taxpayers in many states, including CA IIRC, have been cutting funding to higher education. They want "smaller government" and tax cuts.
As a result, the universities have to find other sources of income, including higher tuition and more out-of-state and foreign students.
The problem is the reverse: Taxpayers in many states, including CA IIRC, have been cutting funding to higher education. They want "smaller government" and tax cuts.
As a result, the universities have to find other sources of income, including higher tuition and more out-of-state and foreign students.
Yeah, I guess it depends on how you account for spending and the will of the voter base.
California's governor has indeed proposed increased funding in recent years:
"Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his proposed state budget at a press conference in Sacramento on Thursday, providing about $350 million to the UC system in additional funding for the 2016-17 fiscal year."
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/01/12/gov-browns-2016-17-budget...
California's governor has indeed proposed increased funding in recent years:
"Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his proposed state budget at a press conference in Sacramento on Thursday, providing about $350 million to the UC system in additional funding for the 2016-17 fiscal year."
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/01/12/gov-browns-2016-17-budget...
Full disclosure: I'm a Greek immigrant in an English-speaking country (the UK),
working and studying part-time in an English-speaking workplace and university.
I parse this article as a very typical pair of complaints:
a) There's too many foreigners here.
b) Their English is bad.
On (a) the population of China is 1.3 billion, the world population is 7.4, so one out of every 7 people on the planet is Chinese. You should expect there to be more foreign people from China than anywhere else, outside China. It should be surprising if there aren't.
The same goes for India: its population is 1.2 billion. And, surprise-surprise, you hear the same complaints about Indians, particularly in IT workplaces, but also in universities.
Note that because everyone else has less than 1 billion population, there's less than one of every other ethnicity for each Chinese and Indian person, so the stand-out effect is even more pronounced.
So, not any serious complaint here, just people who haven't looked at the numbers and think they live in a different historical period where international travel was harder.
As to (b) I personally find this distasteful. Everyone else except native English speakers has even worse trouble communicating in English with non-native English speakers, yet you don't hear as many complaints about it. I have trouble getting what Chinese students are saying in English, as they have trouble getting what I say in English. Well, duh. Human communication is a bitch. If there is a God, he's got a lot to account for with the Tower of Babel malarky and whatnot.
But listen, this is how communication works: you meet the other person halfway. You have to make as much of an effort to understand what the other person is saying as they have to, to make sure you do. That's true even when you both speak the same language natively. It's amazing -no, it's a bloody miracle- that we can communicate at all. Anyone who's studied human languages is struck dumb by the mind-boggling improbability of it. It's crazy that we can even get our point across with a lot of effort, let along effortlessly.
So yeah, quit complaining and just learn to understand what others are saying, in spite of the language barrier. That's what an educated human does.
I parse this article as a very typical pair of complaints:
a) There's too many foreigners here.
b) Their English is bad.
On (a) the population of China is 1.3 billion, the world population is 7.4, so one out of every 7 people on the planet is Chinese. You should expect there to be more foreign people from China than anywhere else, outside China. It should be surprising if there aren't.
The same goes for India: its population is 1.2 billion. And, surprise-surprise, you hear the same complaints about Indians, particularly in IT workplaces, but also in universities.
Note that because everyone else has less than 1 billion population, there's less than one of every other ethnicity for each Chinese and Indian person, so the stand-out effect is even more pronounced.
So, not any serious complaint here, just people who haven't looked at the numbers and think they live in a different historical period where international travel was harder.
As to (b) I personally find this distasteful. Everyone else except native English speakers has even worse trouble communicating in English with non-native English speakers, yet you don't hear as many complaints about it. I have trouble getting what Chinese students are saying in English, as they have trouble getting what I say in English. Well, duh. Human communication is a bitch. If there is a God, he's got a lot to account for with the Tower of Babel malarky and whatnot.
But listen, this is how communication works: you meet the other person halfway. You have to make as much of an effort to understand what the other person is saying as they have to, to make sure you do. That's true even when you both speak the same language natively. It's amazing -no, it's a bloody miracle- that we can communicate at all. Anyone who's studied human languages is struck dumb by the mind-boggling improbability of it. It's crazy that we can even get our point across with a lot of effort, let along effortlessly.
So yeah, quit complaining and just learn to understand what others are saying, in spite of the language barrier. That's what an educated human does.
The difference is that in American universities English is the primary language, and if you can't communicate in English then you shouldn't be attending somewhere where English communication is required.
I disagree with your assertion that I should have to make as much of an effort to understand them as they have to, when they are the ones visiting another country. I wouldn't attend a Chinese university without making sure I can effectively communicate in Chinese (or whatever language is used there), and I expect the same courtesy from other people.
I disagree with your assertion that I should have to make as much of an effort to understand them as they have to, when they are the ones visiting another country. I wouldn't attend a Chinese university without making sure I can effectively communicate in Chinese (or whatever language is used there), and I expect the same courtesy from other people.
The problem is neither of what you mentioned. My concern was universities catering to cheaters because they pay more to attend.
Good summary, though I think your numbers are out of date: I believe China is closer to 1.4 and India's population is estimated as having exceeded that of China of late.
This is the most xenophobic thread I've seen on hacker news. A very significant portion of my program is international and we have no problems. Smartest people I've had the pleasure of working with and no barriers.
Therefore any conflicting experience at other universities must be incorrect?
As a somewhat high-performing student (not necessarily child prodigy but close) in China, how easy/hard is it to get tuition help? Does it require family money/connections (private sources) or are the govt programs which help substantially (public sources)? Are they grants / loans or have other "strings" (obligations) attached?
> School administrators and teachers bluntly say a significant portion of international students are ill prepared
Isn't that a problem with admissions?
Isn't that a problem with admissions?
Admissions know what they're doing, i.e. following administrative policies of letting foreign students paying fully jacked-up tuition no matter what.
The problem is when your university can't find you a job utilizing your degree yet hires foreigners on H1B visas to do such work on campus. How are we supposed to feel about that??
I've had dozens of Chinese students in my classes and graduate rotations. I'm in a technical field and it's a competitive program, and I don't think I've ever encountered a student who couldn't cut it in terms of doing the rigorous work required. On the whole, my Chinese students have been as good or better than their local peers, which is true of most foreign national students: kids who have busted their asses to navigate the difficult academic, bureaucratic, and cultural hurdles to succeeding in an overseas university are typically self-selecting for aptitude and a good work ethic.
That said, I've also found a massively higher level of barefaced cheating, including things like copying and pasting code that previous students had inadvisably put on github, and that after I specifically said I'm aware of the existence of that code and will check for it. Or homework answers that are perfectly correct - if you were answering the homework given to a previous quarter's version of the class, rather than the current version with changes to the specifics. Or looking up answers on smartphones in the middle of a test, and then attempting to ignore the fact that they had been caught.
And it isn't just the cheating: it's the indignation when confronted about it. It's almost never denial, but rather something along the lines of "I did this because I have a lot of work to do. Just don't worry about it this time, I won't cheat on the next one."
It's especially upsetting because the kids aren't incapable of doing the work, they just seem to think that's it's totally acceptable to cheat their way through classes when they feel like it. While it's no more noble or allowable for kids who are in over their heads and unable to do the work cheat, it's at least somewhat understandable. Cheating out of some combination of arrogance and indifference is far more alien to me.
There's a second major problem very specific to Chinese students, that I assume is related to the first: shocking lack of English language skills. I say shocking because these are students who have theoretically scored very high on the SAT or GRE. While I'm in a technical field, we still insist on at least decent verbal scores plus high TOEFL scores for admissions, and yet I regularly get students who have major trouble parsing even very simple written English instructions. I've never noticed the same issue with students from other Asian countries, so I have always wondered if there's some "system" for Chinese students, consisting of either outright cheating on the standardized tests or else some rote memorization techniques that result in acceptable test scores but little-to-no actual English learning.
I'm not a crazy outlier in my department, most faculty who aren't either in or hope to be in leadership positions that require lots of under-the-table footsies with the administration have voiced similar concerns. The administration can't get enough of those inflated foreign tuitions, though, so they aren't likely to do anything substantive on the issue. They've tried to do outreach to get the point across that cheating, both before and after entry to the university, is not acceptable behavior, but from everything I've seen it's water off a duck's back.
Finally, I'm not some closet racist who wants to bring back the lily white college campuses of the bad old days. As I noted, foreign students are, on a whole, much more studios and less likely to take their education for granted when compared to domestic students. And "on a whole" in this case includes Chinese students! The problem isn't that Chinese students (or students of any nationality) are inherently bad: it's that we are sorely lacking in tools to adequately evaluate them for admissions and to get them to understand and respect academic integrity rules.
That said, I've also found a massively higher level of barefaced cheating, including things like copying and pasting code that previous students had inadvisably put on github, and that after I specifically said I'm aware of the existence of that code and will check for it. Or homework answers that are perfectly correct - if you were answering the homework given to a previous quarter's version of the class, rather than the current version with changes to the specifics. Or looking up answers on smartphones in the middle of a test, and then attempting to ignore the fact that they had been caught.
And it isn't just the cheating: it's the indignation when confronted about it. It's almost never denial, but rather something along the lines of "I did this because I have a lot of work to do. Just don't worry about it this time, I won't cheat on the next one."
It's especially upsetting because the kids aren't incapable of doing the work, they just seem to think that's it's totally acceptable to cheat their way through classes when they feel like it. While it's no more noble or allowable for kids who are in over their heads and unable to do the work cheat, it's at least somewhat understandable. Cheating out of some combination of arrogance and indifference is far more alien to me.
There's a second major problem very specific to Chinese students, that I assume is related to the first: shocking lack of English language skills. I say shocking because these are students who have theoretically scored very high on the SAT or GRE. While I'm in a technical field, we still insist on at least decent verbal scores plus high TOEFL scores for admissions, and yet I regularly get students who have major trouble parsing even very simple written English instructions. I've never noticed the same issue with students from other Asian countries, so I have always wondered if there's some "system" for Chinese students, consisting of either outright cheating on the standardized tests or else some rote memorization techniques that result in acceptable test scores but little-to-no actual English learning.
I'm not a crazy outlier in my department, most faculty who aren't either in or hope to be in leadership positions that require lots of under-the-table footsies with the administration have voiced similar concerns. The administration can't get enough of those inflated foreign tuitions, though, so they aren't likely to do anything substantive on the issue. They've tried to do outreach to get the point across that cheating, both before and after entry to the university, is not acceptable behavior, but from everything I've seen it's water off a duck's back.
Finally, I'm not some closet racist who wants to bring back the lily white college campuses of the bad old days. As I noted, foreign students are, on a whole, much more studios and less likely to take their education for granted when compared to domestic students. And "on a whole" in this case includes Chinese students! The problem isn't that Chinese students (or students of any nationality) are inherently bad: it's that we are sorely lacking in tools to adequately evaluate them for admissions and to get them to understand and respect academic integrity rules.
How come families in China are able to pay full US tuition in US dollars, with a Ferrari or not?
Now China has more rich people than the US?
Now China has more rich people than the US?
China has 4x the amount of people as USA. I'm going to assume yes, probably, there are more "rich" people (able to afford a Ferrari for their college student studying in a foreign country) in China than the US. There are more /people/ in China than the US.
But China is supposed to be a poor country?
China, like many countries but more significantly than most, has a wealth distribution gap. The richest 1% of the country own 33% of the wealth.
Now consider how many people live in China (1.3bn) and how many people fit into that 1% (13.5m). That's a lot of families who can afford standards of living greatly different from the averages in rural China. They may also have various incentives to spend that money outside of China rather than build up local institutions for their children to attend.
In theory this cash influx is good for foreign educational institutions, but only if they are smart about the money they take and how they factor it in and spend it. I'm not really convinced they are being smart, but time will tell.
Now consider how many people live in China (1.3bn) and how many people fit into that 1% (13.5m). That's a lot of families who can afford standards of living greatly different from the averages in rural China. They may also have various incentives to spend that money outside of China rather than build up local institutions for their children to attend.
In theory this cash influx is good for foreign educational institutions, but only if they are smart about the money they take and how they factor it in and spend it. I'm not really convinced they are being smart, but time will tell.
Sure, but I was reluctant to conclude that in a Communist, or recently Communist, country the wealth distribution could so quickly be so extreme.
You should read up on how Communism plays out in practice. The Chinese government is full of billionaires who embezzle wealth.
Yes, but I (1) was reluctant to believe that many of them would so flaunt their ill-gotten gains that they would have their kids paying full tuition at a US university and commuting to class in a Ferrari and (2) did get an impression that at times such government bureaucrats got strung up, a firing squad, long prison terms, or some such.
It's on the other side of the plant form me -- I don't have good information.
It's on the other side of the plant form me -- I don't have good information.
My guess is that this is part of the incentive to do this on the other side of the world.
While we're hearing about it happening, we aren't getting specifics about particular people because it's just one or two people living ostentatiously it's a small herd. In a way it's less chance of publicity blowing back on your family in China than flaunting your wealth in Beijing.
While we're hearing about it happening, we aren't getting specifics about particular people because it's just one or two people living ostentatiously it's a small herd. In a way it's less chance of publicity blowing back on your family in China than flaunting your wealth in Beijing.
I don't see how anybody paying attention to the PRC over the last 20 years could think that.
The average citizen is poorer. That doesn't mean that in absolute numbers there aren't more people who can afford an expensive education.
The article says, in many ways, that cross-cultural integration is difficult. But if it wasn't difficult, it wouldn't be an important experience for everyone, foreign and domestic.
In other words, the article merely restates the problem. The real question is how to do it more effectively.
In other words, the article merely restates the problem. The real question is how to do it more effectively.
It's like your typical NYT bestseller business nonfiction book: present a problem and explain it well, but not offer any tangible solutions.
Another view of foreign students:
Study Abroad as a Path to Equity and Justice
https://medium.com/the-development-set/study-abroad-as-a-pat...
Study Abroad as a Path to Equity and Justice
https://medium.com/the-development-set/study-abroad-as-a-pat...
you mean the business of education is following the money and not focusing on spoiled American students who want their cake and eat it too?
Follow the money. Education is a business model, no matter the economic model of the country.
Follow the money. Education is a business model, no matter the economic model of the country.
Then they should be taxed like businesses. Higher education has a responsibility that includes not catering to cheaters because they pay more. Universities can lower their costs, this is a cash/land grab where public resources are likeky being burned for some administrator's gain.
Looks like the U.S. is now copying what Canada, Australia, and New Zealand started doing around 1990. Not only do they get the international education dollars, but they also get their residential property market going up again, with the flow on effects on rents and house prices. Expect the U.S. laws to change to make it easier for international students to get a job in the U.S. and eventually stay permanently, just like what happened in Canada, Australia, and NZ.
> ...they also get their residential property market going up...
Of all the problems the US faces, excessively _low_ housing costs is not one of them.
Indeed, if the effect would be to raise housing costs then this alone would be a reason to rethink the policy.
Of all the problems the US faces, excessively _low_ housing costs is not one of them.
Indeed, if the effect would be to raise housing costs then this alone would be a reason to rethink the policy.
The effect will be to raise housing costs because that profits people who invest in houses. Voters want to get a job, borrow to buy a house, then sell it at a huge gain so they can retire early. U.S. voters are just like those in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and since the 2008 crash, will vote to restrict housing supply via zoning laws and boost buyer and renter supply via international students, and the flow-on effects in immigration and tourism -- students who graduate want to get a job and stay, and their families back home will come visit them -- just like what happened in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Not just speculating land owners but also the financial institutions profiting from issuing mortgages whose influence on policy is obviously enormous.
And while loosening zoning laws wouldn't hurt, there has not been any radical increase in such laws over the last 20 years, certainly not across the whole nation. Yet housing prices have sky rocketed over the same period, even in areas where zoning is lax. So, while it may help some, a real solution is evidently not going to be as facile as some re-zoning.
And while loosening zoning laws wouldn't hurt, there has not been any radical increase in such laws over the last 20 years, certainly not across the whole nation. Yet housing prices have sky rocketed over the same period, even in areas where zoning is lax. So, while it may help some, a real solution is evidently not going to be as facile as some re-zoning.
> Education is a business model
This is from a country that pioneered universal public education. This attitude disgusts me—the exact same arguments apply to health insurance companies. It's a social good with immense effect on our society, and yet we still attempt to drain money from our neighbors to justify its existence.
This is the type of attitude that allows an elite upper class and inspires Trump-esque populist angst. The economy should never be the country's primary concern but balanced with all the citizens' needs.
This is from a country that pioneered universal public education. This attitude disgusts me—the exact same arguments apply to health insurance companies. It's a social good with immense effect on our society, and yet we still attempt to drain money from our neighbors to justify its existence.
This is the type of attitude that allows an elite upper class and inspires Trump-esque populist angst. The economy should never be the country's primary concern but balanced with all the citizens' needs.
Then it seems that you are easily disgusted. You let me know when the "tenured" professors decide to give up their $150k salaries with months-long "sabbaticals".
The "Education System" is basically the "Liberal's" version of the MIC.
The "Education System" is basically the "Liberal's" version of the MIC.
> You let me know when the "tenured" professors decide to give up their $150k salaries with months-long "sabbaticals".
The vast majority of professors make crap money (unless you're a research prof or work at an elite liberal arts college). Sabbaticals are often for a full year.
The problem with education has nothing to do with the wage of the professors—we already can't afford to pay them what they're worth.
> The "Education System" is basically the "Liberal's" version of the MIC.
I can't understand this sentence.
What did anything you have to say do with anything I had to say?
The vast majority of professors make crap money (unless you're a research prof or work at an elite liberal arts college). Sabbaticals are often for a full year.
The problem with education has nothing to do with the wage of the professors—we already can't afford to pay them what they're worth.
> The "Education System" is basically the "Liberal's" version of the MIC.
I can't understand this sentence.
What did anything you have to say do with anything I had to say?
first, define "crap money". Professors work 8-9 months out of the year. for most, their jobs are protected (tenure), which doesn't exist in the real world. Lets not even get into the educational closed-loop many exist in. (3rd-Century Romanian literature will always be 3rd-Century Romanian Lit.)
The problem with education has everything to do with the money the schools have, how they get it and what they do with it - including pay for professors and janitors alike. When the Gov't started giving out 'free money' for student loans, the cost of education went up. why? not because the staff is virtuous and the presidents are moral stalwarts. Its because everyone wants a new car and a flat screen, 4k TV.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13711.pdf
I mentioned the MIC because you brought up politics and class differences re: the FACT that education is a business model. like anything else, it is led around by it nose (money). While I can not say that its the best model, i can say I'm not going to pay for someone's X-year degree(s) in 3rd-Century Romanian literature - nor should I be forced to - that is the very opposite of Liberty.
Harvard has a $36 BILLION endowment and yet the costs keep going up. WHY? Education SHOULD be one of those things we look up to in society, but unless there is better motivating factor to do so, it will not happen. But then, who says formal education is the ONLY way to get educated?
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/27/pf/college/largest-college-e...
The problem with education has everything to do with the money the schools have, how they get it and what they do with it - including pay for professors and janitors alike. When the Gov't started giving out 'free money' for student loans, the cost of education went up. why? not because the staff is virtuous and the presidents are moral stalwarts. Its because everyone wants a new car and a flat screen, 4k TV.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13711.pdf
I mentioned the MIC because you brought up politics and class differences re: the FACT that education is a business model. like anything else, it is led around by it nose (money). While I can not say that its the best model, i can say I'm not going to pay for someone's X-year degree(s) in 3rd-Century Romanian literature - nor should I be forced to - that is the very opposite of Liberty.
Harvard has a $36 BILLION endowment and yet the costs keep going up. WHY? Education SHOULD be one of those things we look up to in society, but unless there is better motivating factor to do so, it will not happen. But then, who says formal education is the ONLY way to get educated?
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/27/pf/college/largest-college-e...
Maybe in Murica. Selling ovaries, shooting porno videos, sex work, stripping. These are the opportunities available to young American students.
If they were in Germany, they would've gotten into a good tradeship or university all paid for without having to succumb to transgressive career choices just so they can support themselves through an expensive and horribly faulty notion that education is a business just like trading stocks.
If they were in Germany, they would've gotten into a good tradeship or university all paid for without having to succumb to transgressive career choices just so they can support themselves through an expensive and horribly faulty notion that education is a business just like trading stocks.
> succumb to transgressive career choices just so they can support themselves through an expensive and horribly faulty notion that education is a business just like trading stocks.
Or, you know, you could borrow the money to study and then get a high-paying job in NYC or SF, pay it all back in less than three years, and enjoy low taxes for the rest of your 40 year career.
The U.S. system is polarizing, for better (if you're lucky / don't fuck up) or for worse.
Or, you know, you could borrow the money to study and then get a high-paying job in NYC or SF, pay it all back in less than three years, and enjoy low taxes for the rest of your 40 year career.
The U.S. system is polarizing, for better (if you're lucky / don't fuck up) or for worse.
borrowing money means you need credit which lot of young adults don't have.
don't assume everyone else has the same options as you.
don't assume everyone else has the same options as you.
You asserted that no one had good options. You're pretty clearly wrong.
compared to university students in Germany and France?
please tell me a German university student who sold their ovaries or body to fund their education. oh thats right it's all paid for.
lets not forget the quarter of a million dollar student loans that they will be forced to pay for. Pretty sure that's nothing couple years of work and all paid for right?
seriously America is too ghetto for university students, you have to literally fend for your self while in Europe the state recognizes the value in investing in university students through a national program. After all, much of the innovation comes from such institution. Maybe not so far America since they import all of the talent anyways starting from WW2 days
also explains why startup founders are overwhelmingly are immigrants. There just isn't enough American students from American universities thriving apart from exclusive ivy league lucky sperm club (being a navajo or hispanic applicant certainly helps) while barring Asian Americans because the 'yellow peril' is taking over the campus.
please tell me a German university student who sold their ovaries or body to fund their education. oh thats right it's all paid for.
lets not forget the quarter of a million dollar student loans that they will be forced to pay for. Pretty sure that's nothing couple years of work and all paid for right?
seriously America is too ghetto for university students, you have to literally fend for your self while in Europe the state recognizes the value in investing in university students through a national program. After all, much of the innovation comes from such institution. Maybe not so far America since they import all of the talent anyways starting from WW2 days
also explains why startup founders are overwhelmingly are immigrants. There just isn't enough American students from American universities thriving apart from exclusive ivy league lucky sperm club (being a navajo or hispanic applicant certainly helps) while barring Asian Americans because the 'yellow peril' is taking over the campus.
Take note fellow engineers: There is an effort from our industry, our government and our educational institutions to bring in more foreign students and keep them here. They are cheaper than you and will always be younger than you.
HN conversations, on the whole have almost none of the bigotry (racism, homophobia, misogyny) of other forums. Yet, thread after thread seems to contain xenophobic posts. Usually it is in discussions about H1B or foreign students in the US. It is unfortunate that a generally well-educated crowd has these bad apples. I have linked to offensive conversations in my comments elsewhere on HN about this and I won't belabor.
Well I give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the motivation is primarily economic rather than xenophobic.
As a H1B worker, I know I am depressing wages for Americans. Not just by increasing the labor supply, but also by having a weaker negotiation position than I would have as a citizen or as a permanent resident.
The "STEM shortage" is pure fantasy. The US should only take in the very best people, those who end up hired by top companies at competitive salaries, and give them permanent residency quickly. The people who come in with low salaries to replace American workers, like in the Disney case, should never have been given an H1B. That sort of abuse is going to end up bringing down the entire program.
Accusation of bigotry are just a means of controlling the conversation using taboos.
The "STEM shortage" is pure fantasy. The US should only take in the very best people, those who end up hired by top companies at competitive salaries, and give them permanent residency quickly. The people who come in with low salaries to replace American workers, like in the Disney case, should never have been given an H1B. That sort of abuse is going to end up bringing down the entire program.
Accusation of bigotry are just a means of controlling the conversation using taboos.
>HN conversations, on the whole have almost none of the bigotry (racism, homophobia, misogyny) of other forums.
People are people. Xenophobia just happens to be the discrimination that this community accepts.
People are people. Xenophobia just happens to be the discrimination that this community accepts.
This community is divided on some of these issues but it's not fair to say that it "accepts" xenophobia.
Perhaps you do not accept it, and have some rank around here. But I think it's accepted generally. Of course no one will admit as much.
I'm sure you're following these threads. They're filled with xenophobia. For example, in an article covering similar material currently on the front page, the top comment calls H1Bs "scabs", and it is unquestioned. Contrast this with when someone criticizes some feminist policy on these boards; they're called out pretty quickly. Being thought of as "sexist" is taboo in SV; being a "xenophobe" is just patriotic.
This is just one of many "communities" I frequent. HN is very self-righteous about the level of conversation and discourse here. For the most part, it's pretty good. But introduce the right topic, and you'll quickly realize that the people here can stoop pretty low.
I'm sure you're following these threads. They're filled with xenophobia. For example, in an article covering similar material currently on the front page, the top comment calls H1Bs "scabs", and it is unquestioned. Contrast this with when someone criticizes some feminist policy on these boards; they're called out pretty quickly. Being thought of as "sexist" is taboo in SV; being a "xenophobe" is just patriotic.
This is just one of many "communities" I frequent. HN is very self-righteous about the level of conversation and discourse here. For the most part, it's pretty good. But introduce the right topic, and you'll quickly realize that the people here can stoop pretty low.
I see more of HN than anyone else does (probably by far), and am pretty sure you're falling prey to the bias of generalizing about HN based on what stands out to you. It's not that the comments you're observing don't exist; it's that we all have a Maxwell's Demon in our heads who routes obnoxious bits to one compartment of our memory and unobjectionable bits to another.
Your claim about SV is also far from true, in my observation; the opposite is much closer to true. Generalizations about HN and SV often go hand in hand, and that's another fallacy: they're two worlds that overlap less than you'd think, and also conflict.
---
Edit: a later name for this Maxwell's Demon analogy is the 'notice-dislike' bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
More on 'demons' here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Your claim about SV is also far from true, in my observation; the opposite is much closer to true. Generalizations about HN and SV often go hand in hand, and that's another fallacy: they're two worlds that overlap less than you'd think, and also conflict.
---
Edit: a later name for this Maxwell's Demon analogy is the 'notice-dislike' bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
More on 'demons' here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Are they more competent than you?
If they are not, you have little to worry about. If they are, they deserve your job.
If they are not, you have little to worry about. If they are, they deserve your job.
> Are they more competent than you?
no.[0]
It's purely a money thing. I don't fault our industry, I do fault our government for bending over backward for them. Besides, I'd rather our industry and government focus on filling those classrooms with Americans and hiring Americans first. But it's a self fulfilling prophecy and I just want to start a conversation because I think that this "career" may not be the best if you are at all capable.
[0] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...
no.[0]
It's purely a money thing. I don't fault our industry, I do fault our government for bending over backward for them. Besides, I'd rather our industry and government focus on filling those classrooms with Americans and hiring Americans first. But it's a self fulfilling prophecy and I just want to start a conversation because I think that this "career" may not be the best if you are at all capable.
[0] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...
> our industry and government focus on filling those classrooms with Americans and hiring Americans first
While there might be some consumer preference to a "we hire americans" and "made in america", I think that typically loses to things like price and quality, and if a business is seeking maximum profit, they're not going to limit themselves when it comes to hiring
I guess the tragedy as mentioned in this article is that universities are businesses and international students are more profitable
While there might be some consumer preference to a "we hire americans" and "made in america", I think that typically loses to things like price and quality, and if a business is seeking maximum profit, they're not going to limit themselves when it comes to hiring
I guess the tragedy as mentioned in this article is that universities are businesses and international students are more profitable
Agreed. The H1B push seems to be solving a short term problem while leaving our domestic educational problems unaddressed.
America already has many of the best Universities in the world.
From looking at international rankings it looks like the domestic educational problems are more in the middle and high-school level. The Universities are doing great.
From looking at international rankings it looks like the domestic educational problems are more in the middle and high-school level. The Universities are doing great.
Professors across the country (three West coast, two east coast, one sw) have told me that undergrad is going to shit actually, but grad school is still ok for now.
Shitty high-school means unprepared undergrad students, which means comparatively better foreign students.
More honest professors admit that it's universities that are really dropping the ball.
Do they blame the professors or the administration?
If it's the professors all hope is lost, since future professors will be taught by the people who are currently dropping the ball.
If it's the professors all hope is lost, since future professors will be taught by the people who are currently dropping the ball.
And yet, more and more of the students at the top schools are international. The non-top schools are failing to provide students with competitive schools, but are still driving students into debt.
We may have quality teaching, but we are not educating ourselves.
We may have quality teaching, but we are not educating ourselves.
Maybe international students are at the top because you guys have terrible high-schools.
It's also possible that the reason the top Universities are at the top is that the top foreign students want to go there. That means giving Americans more preferential treatment may "break the spell" so to speak.
It's also possible that the reason the top Universities are at the top is that the top foreign students want to go there. That means giving Americans more preferential treatment may "break the spell" so to speak.
No argument here—high schools are part of the problem. Even more of a reason to invest there now rather than over seas.
Yes, it's a money thing. If you can't make the company more money than what they pay you but the other guy can (because they are more competent or because they ask for less money) then why should you be hired over the other guy?
Because we fund our government not to make our living conditions worse and more competitive but safer and more fruitful. Why should we fund infrastructure, a giant military, politicians if we are not to reap the benefits as a citizen of a solid nation to live in?
Now while I believe we live in a global economy, and everyone deserves to work, eat and have healthcare I can fully appreciate why people are upset at the government for assisting these programs to grow.
Now while I believe we live in a global economy, and everyone deserves to work, eat and have healthcare I can fully appreciate why people are upset at the government for assisting these programs to grow.
They don't have to be more competent if they are cheaper. Assuming that companies always hire the "best" for the job is naive.
That they don't hire the best individual doesn't mean they don't hire the best team. Sometimes the cheap inexperienced developer is the best investment and you are not. In that situation the cheap inexperienced guy deserves the job and you don't.
If the company makes a mistake, that is, they think they need a cheap inexperienced guy when in fact they need a 100% American-born-and-raised engineer, that company will be outcompeted by the ones who better know what they need.
If the company makes a mistake, that is, they think they need a cheap inexperienced guy when in fact they need a 100% American-born-and-raised engineer, that company will be outcompeted by the ones who better know what they need.
Yes, if people were reducible to a specific set of data points and the world worked on perfect knowledge and optimally efficiently, that would be true.
[deleted]
It's an interesting viewpoint, and consistent with a pure free market theory of labor I guess.
But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to labor.
The government does constrain companies in other domains. Companies are subjected to pollution laws, tax laws, building codes/regulations/approvals, higher utility rates, incorporation fees, and industry specific rules (look at pharmaceutical companies and health insurers).
But, if the government requires companies to commit to training and giving hiring preference to the existing local employee base over people from outside the country (people who can't and don't vote in US elections) -- is that indefensible?
But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to labor.
The government does constrain companies in other domains. Companies are subjected to pollution laws, tax laws, building codes/regulations/approvals, higher utility rates, incorporation fees, and industry specific rules (look at pharmaceutical companies and health insurers).
But, if the government requires companies to commit to training and giving hiring preference to the existing local employee base over people from outside the country (people who can't and don't vote in US elections) -- is that indefensible?
I'm sure it's defensible. In a free country you can defend anything you want.
But it certainly seems unfair because it makes a feedback loop that keeps people who are in most need of jobs from getting those jobs, even in the hypothetical case where they are more cheap, more competent, or at least less incompetent than they are cheap.
But it certainly seems unfair because it makes a feedback loop that keeps people who are in most need of jobs from getting those jobs, even in the hypothetical case where they are more cheap, more competent, or at least less incompetent than they are cheap.
Then it looks like the components of proper job allocation are competency and need, subject to whatever regulations (if any) a democratically elected government imposes.
It's not hard to imagine situations where someone who is the most competent person for a job would not get the job because someone who needs the job more should get it.
And, come to think of it, the government would probably be involved in the definition of "need" too. So that's a new regulation I guess. Elected lawmakers would be subjected to the will of the voters on that issue too.
It's not hard to imagine situations where someone who is the most competent person for a job would not get the job because someone who needs the job more should get it.
And, come to think of it, the government would probably be involved in the definition of "need" too. So that's a new regulation I guess. Elected lawmakers would be subjected to the will of the voters on that issue too.
Does my landscaper deserve his job when I'd rather hire a peasant from the Congo to do the job for a handful of rice?
If the Congolese peasant can do the job about as well as the landscaper it would be almost evil not to hire him. If he is really willing to receive a handful of rice as payment he may be in a position where he will die if you don't hire him!
Of course if your landscaper is better at the job you shouldn't feel obligated to hire the Congolese person just so he doesn't starve.
Of course if your landscaper is better at the job you shouldn't feel obligated to hire the Congolese person just so he doesn't starve.
Students will always be younger than you. The foreign aspect doesn't change it.
If we had solid immigration programs that gave an easier route to permanent residency and didn't make work visa applicants indentured to their employer foreign engineers would be demanding higher salaries and the wage gape would reduce. The current system makes it easy to kick out foreigners so they know their savings are going back to their home country so they don't care as much. Also, they can't play the job market because their visa status is largely tied to their employer.
If we introduced some simple policy reform (and overhauled the H-1 program) the whole foreigners cutting wages issue would go away.
If we had solid immigration programs that gave an easier route to permanent residency and didn't make work visa applicants indentured to their employer foreign engineers would be demanding higher salaries and the wage gape would reduce. The current system makes it easy to kick out foreigners so they know their savings are going back to their home country so they don't care as much. Also, they can't play the job market because their visa status is largely tied to their employer.
If we introduced some simple policy reform (and overhauled the H-1 program) the whole foreigners cutting wages issue would go away.
> If we introduced some simple policy reform (and overhauled the H-1 program) the whole foreigners cutting wages issue would go away.
As always, I encourage everyone here to first politely call, and barring that, politically rage against their elected representatives to enact the change they want to see.
I do my part daily. Please do yours.
As always, I encourage everyone here to first politely call, and barring that, politically rage against their elected representatives to enact the change they want to see.
I do my part daily. Please do yours.
I do not care if they are cheaper and younger as long as they are competent. If the standards and the process is the same, they are welcome to learn, assimilate, stay, and earn a living.
But that's not why colleges like foreign students. This is about state schools bringing on "out of state" students who're paying full freight.
Agreed to the point that I find ones_and_zeros' comment a complete non-sequitur. The entire article is about American colleges recruiting Chinese students who can pay full tuition. Such students are likely to be wealthier than their classmates. And most of the article was about assimilation problems, which implies that these students are not likely to stay in the US.
China actually has government resources dedicated to this. I met a fellow (I won't go into more detail but he was pretty high up in the food chain) while ago whose job was to go to the US and "encourage" Chinese students to return post-graduation.
Take note, fellow engineers: you are participating in a market, and the market will do what it can to increase supply. Increased supply will always be in the market's best interests, but not always in yours. Plan accordingly.
My fellow engineers seem to favor restricting supply for the market where they are on the supply side (labor market) but also favor increasing supply for the market where they are on the demand side (housing).
A great display of the human condition for pursuing self interest. (Hey I think it's rational to take both these positions at once too)
A great display of the human condition for pursuing self interest. (Hey I think it's rational to take both these positions at once too)
I don't see what's incoherent about people pursuing their straightforward collective self-interest. Are we supposed to be implying that whole economies should run as charities?
The only self-interest you seem to be pursuing is the self-interest of business owners. Targeted immigration at a specific field is wealth redistribution from people that compete with immigrants to people that do not (ie, the person that hires you).
So when you talk about that I should be selfless for the workers around the world that want my job, I pretty much know what side of the table you stand on. You are either A. A foreign worker B. an employer or C. have some broader social agenda
So stop criticizing workers for wanting to protect their self interest because everyone has their own agenda they want to forward
edit: changed it to be less rude
So when you talk about that I should be selfless for the workers around the world that want my job, I pretty much know what side of the table you stand on. You are either A. A foreign worker B. an employer or C. have some broader social agenda
So stop criticizing workers for wanting to protect their self interest because everyone has their own agenda they want to forward
edit: changed it to be less rude
First, do not accuse HN commenters of shilling for their own economic agenda. There are 18 zillion different forms of message board incivility, and accusations of bad faith commenting are one of the minuscule few than the site bans overtly.
Second, if you oppose immigration on the grounds that it increases supply, lowers prices, and thus reduces wages for tech workers, do you oppose everything else that does that? Should we educate fewer tech workers? Should we do fewer things to spot underutilized tech talent? Should we have fewer remote-friendly offices, so that we can constrict the market down to only those people who are willing to live in tech hubs? Where do you draw the line?
Second, if you oppose immigration on the grounds that it increases supply, lowers prices, and thus reduces wages for tech workers, do you oppose everything else that does that? Should we educate fewer tech workers? Should we do fewer things to spot underutilized tech talent? Should we have fewer remote-friendly offices, so that we can constrict the market down to only those people who are willing to live in tech hubs? Where do you draw the line?
>First, do not accuse HN commenters of shilling for their own economic agenda. There are 18 zillion different forms of message board incivility, and accusations of bad faith commenting are one of the minuscule few than the site bans overtly.
Did you read the parent comment? It generalized that every engineer that opposes immigration is doing it because they are selfish and are only interested in money.
Also you call it that I am claiming they are shilling when I was in reality pointing out that everyone has bias and you should understand your own before criticizing others.
>Second, if you oppose immigration on the grounds that it increases supply, lowers prices, and thus reduces wages for tech workers, do you oppose everything else that does that? Should we educate fewer tech workers? Should we do fewer things to spot underutilized tech talent? Should we have fewer remote-friendly offices, so that we can constrict the market down to only those people who are willing to live in tech hubs? Where do you draw the line?
The line will clearly be arbitrary. We as a country need to decide how much certain jobs are worth and design our immigration policy around it. Unchecked immigration of unskilled labor is killing the lower and middle class and driving wages into the ground. If Americans can't find jobs it's time to ease up on immigration. Likewise if companies like Disney are laying off entire divisions to hire cheaper foreign workers then maybe H-1B visas should be reduced.
I personally think the USG should always prioritize the welfare of Americans (including recent immigrants) over foreign workers.
Did you read the parent comment? It generalized that every engineer that opposes immigration is doing it because they are selfish and are only interested in money.
Also you call it that I am claiming they are shilling when I was in reality pointing out that everyone has bias and you should understand your own before criticizing others.
>Second, if you oppose immigration on the grounds that it increases supply, lowers prices, and thus reduces wages for tech workers, do you oppose everything else that does that? Should we educate fewer tech workers? Should we do fewer things to spot underutilized tech talent? Should we have fewer remote-friendly offices, so that we can constrict the market down to only those people who are willing to live in tech hubs? Where do you draw the line?
The line will clearly be arbitrary. We as a country need to decide how much certain jobs are worth and design our immigration policy around it. Unchecked immigration of unskilled labor is killing the lower and middle class and driving wages into the ground. If Americans can't find jobs it's time to ease up on immigration. Likewise if companies like Disney are laying off entire divisions to hire cheaper foreign workers then maybe H-1B visas should be reduced.
I personally think the USG should always prioritize the welfare of Americans (including recent immigrants) over foreign workers.
That's fair, but you can't respond to someone's offensive overgeneralization with a direct accusation that they are hypocritically talking their own book. Don't respond to bad comments with even more badness.
As for the rest of it:
The reality is that the market's pressure to increase supply in response to extreme demand will swamp any protectionist policies we come up with. There may be no job in the world more portable than software development. We can import labor to fill the gap and enjoy the tax revenue, or we can watch more and more of world's development work be performed overseas.
I don't love our immigration policy today (this is one of the very few places where I'm a libertarian; I think we should just auction visas off), but I don't think excluding immigrants is going to help us in the long term.
As for the rest of it:
The reality is that the market's pressure to increase supply in response to extreme demand will swamp any protectionist policies we come up with. There may be no job in the world more portable than software development. We can import labor to fill the gap and enjoy the tax revenue, or we can watch more and more of world's development work be performed overseas.
I don't love our immigration policy today (this is one of the very few places where I'm a libertarian; I think we should just auction visas off), but I don't think excluding immigrants is going to help us in the long term.
That's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one, and I dislike using that phrase.
The other option is if there is in fact a skills shortage, we encourage our businesses to train people already in the country first. Our education system is excellent contrary to popular belief and we have plenty of unemployed and underemployed people that have demonstrated their ability to learn new skills so why not go to them first?
Instead the path right now is some very unknown foreign college -> non competitive masters program (USC, UTDallas, UFla are common) for an F1 visa -> employee hires on OPT for 3 years of "training" -> apply for H-1B for the ones that show any promise.
So we are optimizing a system that takes students from education systems that consistently rank at the bottom globally, put them in mediocre masters programs for 2 years, train them for 3 years and we finally have something usable? Please.
The other option is if there is in fact a skills shortage, we encourage our businesses to train people already in the country first. Our education system is excellent contrary to popular belief and we have plenty of unemployed and underemployed people that have demonstrated their ability to learn new skills so why not go to them first?
Instead the path right now is some very unknown foreign college -> non competitive masters program (USC, UTDallas, UFla are common) for an F1 visa -> employee hires on OPT for 3 years of "training" -> apply for H-1B for the ones that show any promise.
So we are optimizing a system that takes students from education systems that consistently rank at the bottom globally, put them in mediocre masters programs for 2 years, train them for 3 years and we finally have something usable? Please.
So here is what I don't understand about the supply demand argument in the context of workers. When Disney hired their IT division it was clearly because their was a need and benefit from having them. If paying the wages of that division was prohibitively expensive wouldn't they have gone out of business before they had the opportunity to outsource? So clearly on that front I think we can assume that a company similar to disney would outsource simply for profit.
Now another argument in favor of immigration is that it brings down the costs of good for everybody. Chicken will be cheaper of course when you have people working for 5 dollars an hour to produce it. Well the reality is that only 5 to 6% of the cost of producing chicken comes from wages. I'm sure if we looked at the software industry we would have the same finding.
Now what is the cost of targeting a specific field for immigration? For native workers the loss in wages is half a trillion dollars. The immigrants create a 50 billion dollar surplus. Almost all of the increase in GDP from immigrants comes from their wages at 2,053.8 billion out of the 2,104.0 billion total increase in GDP from immigrants.
So American citizens see a 50 billion dollar net increase in GDP (that is relevant to them) from increased immigration. (page 9 in the link below)
So we are taking half a trillion dollars from targeted workers for a 50 billion dollar increase to the overall population.
The 50 billion dollar surplus seems like a lot thinking as a normal person but 50 billion is nothing when talking about GDP. So from what I see, the only purpose targeted immigration at a specific field serves is to divert money from workers to employers
In the same chart on page 9 it shows that the surplus is received by the native businesses that benefit from the cheaper workers.
also consider this, do we want to create an america where we have a clear divide between workers and owners because we constantly artificially inflate the supply of workers using immigration?
also I think it's a little hypocritical that we aren't bringing in other white collar workers, we should have A-1B for attorneys and B-1Bs for bankers, I'm sure people in other countries will clamor to learn american law and finance for a chance to come here
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Bo...
Now another argument in favor of immigration is that it brings down the costs of good for everybody. Chicken will be cheaper of course when you have people working for 5 dollars an hour to produce it. Well the reality is that only 5 to 6% of the cost of producing chicken comes from wages. I'm sure if we looked at the software industry we would have the same finding.
Now what is the cost of targeting a specific field for immigration? For native workers the loss in wages is half a trillion dollars. The immigrants create a 50 billion dollar surplus. Almost all of the increase in GDP from immigrants comes from their wages at 2,053.8 billion out of the 2,104.0 billion total increase in GDP from immigrants.
So American citizens see a 50 billion dollar net increase in GDP (that is relevant to them) from increased immigration. (page 9 in the link below)
So we are taking half a trillion dollars from targeted workers for a 50 billion dollar increase to the overall population.
The 50 billion dollar surplus seems like a lot thinking as a normal person but 50 billion is nothing when talking about GDP. So from what I see, the only purpose targeted immigration at a specific field serves is to divert money from workers to employers
In the same chart on page 9 it shows that the surplus is received by the native businesses that benefit from the cheaper workers.
also consider this, do we want to create an america where we have a clear divide between workers and owners because we constantly artificially inflate the supply of workers using immigration?
also I think it's a little hypocritical that we aren't bringing in other white collar workers, we should have A-1B for attorneys and B-1Bs for bankers, I'm sure people in other countries will clamor to learn american law and finance for a chance to come here
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Bo...
My bias is my personal relationship with engineers abroad who are paid fractions of what we are. I am completely aware of my own bias and do not consider my position to be the "universally correct" position. I don't think such a thing exists.
Having a bias is the same thing as having an opinion. We are each free to have our own opinions and preferences. Disagreeing is part of this, and even if we disagree about our own preferences, I hope that we can empathize with where the other party is coming from and what the basis of their opinion is. To have an opinion is not to be a hypocrite, to borrow your words.
What I do find to be self-contradictory, is when many Bay Area tech workers support protectionism for their own interests (immigration) but oppose protectionism that oppose their own interests (housing development). There is a glaring lack of empathy for why someone could reasonably and justifiably hold an anti development position (anyone who opposes development is automatically a NIMBY, just as you pointed out that I have generalized all tech workers who oppose immigration to be doing so out of their personal self interest -- which is a gross simplification that I apologize for making). Similarly, when they demand empathy for their housing plight, they do not share the same empathy for their fellow engineers who similarly want to have access to greener pastures. But despite the lack of consistency, I can understand why they would take each of their positions.
Having a bias is the same thing as having an opinion. We are each free to have our own opinions and preferences. Disagreeing is part of this, and even if we disagree about our own preferences, I hope that we can empathize with where the other party is coming from and what the basis of their opinion is. To have an opinion is not to be a hypocrite, to borrow your words.
What I do find to be self-contradictory, is when many Bay Area tech workers support protectionism for their own interests (immigration) but oppose protectionism that oppose their own interests (housing development). There is a glaring lack of empathy for why someone could reasonably and justifiably hold an anti development position (anyone who opposes development is automatically a NIMBY, just as you pointed out that I have generalized all tech workers who oppose immigration to be doing so out of their personal self interest -- which is a gross simplification that I apologize for making). Similarly, when they demand empathy for their housing plight, they do not share the same empathy for their fellow engineers who similarly want to have access to greener pastures. But despite the lack of consistency, I can understand why they would take each of their positions.
>My bias is my personal relationship with engineers abroad who are paid fractions of what we are. I am completely aware of my own bias and do not consider my position to be the "universally correct" position. I don't think such a thing exists.
My suggestion may go against your preference since it wont always help your engineer friends but I think dynamic targeted immigration at jobs that are suffering from worker shortage is the solution. What we have now is a disaster though, a long lasting law targeting fields that may not even need the increased supply in workers anymore.
I personally have nothing against immigrants, the people I have met are in general amazing. But I have my own interests to take care of before I can consider others.
Also H-1Bs target IT in general but is the sort of IT that disney laid off really facing a labor shortage?
>What I do find to be self-contradictory, is when many Bay Area tech workers support protectionism for their own interests (immigration) but oppose protectionism that oppose their own interests (housing development).
I'm not from the bay area so I don't know the fine details of the housing market but are you talking about engineers supporting building more apartments? Also if they are acting in a hypocritical way you would be right to call them out on it.
My suggestion may go against your preference since it wont always help your engineer friends but I think dynamic targeted immigration at jobs that are suffering from worker shortage is the solution. What we have now is a disaster though, a long lasting law targeting fields that may not even need the increased supply in workers anymore.
I personally have nothing against immigrants, the people I have met are in general amazing. But I have my own interests to take care of before I can consider others.
Also H-1Bs target IT in general but is the sort of IT that disney laid off really facing a labor shortage?
>What I do find to be self-contradictory, is when many Bay Area tech workers support protectionism for their own interests (immigration) but oppose protectionism that oppose their own interests (housing development).
I'm not from the bay area so I don't know the fine details of the housing market but are you talking about engineers supporting building more apartments? Also if they are acting in a hypocritical way you would be right to call them out on it.
And I respect your well reasoned position, even if it does go against my own interests -- even after being called a hypocrite ;)
Especially since the market is rigged against workers.
Another way of putting this is: Don't plan on a job security in this century by being part of the cost center of a business.
...and, soon enough, they will be you, arguing how America used to be greater, and how the newcomers are threatening to change the society their generation worked so hard to build. The cycle continues.
>Take note fellow engineers
You realize some of those fellow engineers are Chinese, right? And Indian, British, Canadian, Brazilian...
What makes you any more deserving of work?
You realize some of those fellow engineers are Chinese, right? And Indian, British, Canadian, Brazilian...
What makes you any more deserving of work?
Some of these Chinese kids also come with an incredible amount of money. I look around our local campus and see kids driving McLarens, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Maseratis, Bentleys, Audi R8s, it's like the set of a Top Gear episode and without exception the drivers are young Chinese.
You've always seen the occasional BMW or Merc at the Greek houses but these cars are insane.
You've always seen the occasional BMW or Merc at the Greek houses but these cars are insane.
This is the primary reason since Chinese students have money and pay jacked up tuition (2x or more than in-state). What exactly is the incentive not to recruit? Heck, to ND's shame Dickinson State University went even further and sold bogus degrees. Money is a heck of incentive.
I paid more than double in-state for out-of-state tuition at Rutgers. Tried to get in-state after living there for a few years and they denied it. All that means is I won't donate to them as an alumni. I, unfortunately, did not have a McLaren to go along with the inflated tuition. I'm still thankful that I went to uni though.
It's sort of the rationale that Ivy schools have always had in accepting a student following a generous "gift" by their parents.
Even as students we figured "well I guess getting a brand new Chemistry building in exchange for giving up one out of the 1000 seats we have in our class isn't such a bad deal."
Truly a "portfolio of students"
Even as students we figured "well I guess getting a brand new Chemistry building in exchange for giving up one out of the 1000 seats we have in our class isn't such a bad deal."
Truly a "portfolio of students"
> brand new Chemistry building
So, 50+ million in exchange for admission? sounds rather steep. For that amount I think you could find a famous professor willing to go on a 'sabbatical' to tutor you personally for a year.
I think I know how I'm going to spend my lottery jackpot.
So, 50+ million in exchange for admission? sounds rather steep. For that amount I think you could find a famous professor willing to go on a 'sabbatical' to tutor you personally for a year.
I think I know how I'm going to spend my lottery jackpot.
50+ mil a year would be an okay tutoring gig.
Without the Chinese luxury tax their cars are "budget models" from their perspective.
The plus side of living in a college town loaded with Chinese students is that you can get decent Chinese food rather than the typical Americanized garbage.
The plus side of living in a college town loaded with Chinese students is that you can get decent Chinese food rather than the typical Americanized garbage.
> The plus side of living in a college town loaded with Chinese students is that you can get decent Chinese food rather than the typical Americanized garbage.
Really? Chicken feet? Duck heads? Fish eyes? Scorpions-on-a-stick? Meat that's been cut so as to include at least a small portion of bone in each piece?
Unless I miss my guess, you're eating heavily Americanized Chinese food, and you'd hate it if the restaurants suddenly stopped offering that.
Really? Chicken feet? Duck heads? Fish eyes? Scorpions-on-a-stick? Meat that's been cut so as to include at least a small portion of bone in each piece?
Unless I miss my guess, you're eating heavily Americanized Chinese food, and you'd hate it if the restaurants suddenly stopped offering that.
First, I resent your caricature of Chinese food. The most 'exotic' dish commonly eaten might be eggplant and chicken over rice - certainly not 'fish eyes and scorpions'! Heck, only Hong Kong-style dim sum places offer chicken feet, the most common dish that you named.
Second, you completely miss the intent of the parent poster. Having more Chinese from the mainland/HK/TW means more authentic food. It doesn't necessarily mean less Kung Pao or General Tso's, it just means you'll have more competition for 'authentic/specialty' foods.
Second, you completely miss the intent of the parent poster. Having more Chinese from the mainland/HK/TW means more authentic food. It doesn't necessarily mean less Kung Pao or General Tso's, it just means you'll have more competition for 'authentic/specialty' foods.
A place I ate lunch at for most of a year had a big bowl of duck heads on display. They were for sale, if you wanted to eat one.
And I don't understand your implication that Kung Pao chicken isn't "authentic" chinese food.
And I don't understand your implication that Kung Pao chicken isn't "authentic" chinese food.
Ugh, just don't. I mean for one thing, the poster is not wrong to point out that college towns often have better/more authentic food (both American and not).
More people with disposable incomes and less time to cook + a large workforce of young adults looking for a part time job = more restaurants and (on average) better food.
More people with disposable incomes and less time to cook + a large workforce of young adults looking for a part time job = more restaurants and (on average) better food.
> the poster is not wrong to point out that college towns often have better/more authentic food (both American and not)
But he is wrong to say that "authentic" food is superior to Americanized food. Vendors in America Americanize their food for reasons of audience demand (for example, I hate biting into meat and getting a big chunk of bone) -- and I don't believe he's actually aware of which aspects of the food are "authentic" and which are Americanized. A greater variety of dishes offered doesn't mean those dishes are prepared the way they would be at home.
But he is wrong to say that "authentic" food is superior to Americanized food. Vendors in America Americanize their food for reasons of audience demand (for example, I hate biting into meat and getting a big chunk of bone) -- and I don't believe he's actually aware of which aspects of the food are "authentic" and which are Americanized. A greater variety of dishes offered doesn't mean those dishes are prepared the way they would be at home.
Yeah go to harvard square on a sunday and is Maserati's and 22 yearold's. No offense against them but I mean in all fairness if I was 22 and my dad gave me a ferrari I wouldn't turn it down. Reputation wise though what type of people will they become? Humble down to earth and kind people?
Harvard students _have_ always been noted for their humility... /s
LOL. Where did you get that?
There are even more American kids with the same amount of money.
You just don't notice the international students who come from modest means.
You just don't notice the international students who come from modest means.
There are Chinese grad students who come from modest means... but not undergrads. Undergrads have to pay the foreign student tuition.
Perhaps, but only the Chinese bring supercars to campus.
Edit: I am not generalizing to all international chinese students, nor do I know how uncommon or common my perspective is, but this is what I experienced among undergrad and graduate international chinese students where I was studying in the US.
More importantly, universities should not be allowing this sort of behavior in the first place.
I'm surprised that this article didn't bother to present anyone else's perspective (the other students, more faculty, people who live near college campuses. More than discord, I bore witness to many international Chinese students instances demonstrating a lack of basic morals. Rude to waiters, aggressively driving around pedestrains, not bothering to pick up trash, no qualms about abusing or destroying resources or cleaning up after themselves. Pushing people off sidewalks. Cheating on tests, homework, sneering and trying to bullshit their way out of it. Large cheating rings. I've seen so much shit from international chinese students, not kicking them out or punishing them for what they did negatively impacted everyone's college experience, and will continue to dilute the reputation of my degree.