6 ms·
I applaud the move. Yet it is important to put all the cards on the table. I can't help to be bothered by what could pass of hypocrisy at various levels. The
by rebootthesystem 10y ago
I applaud the move. Yet it is important to put all the cards on the table.
I can't help to be bothered by what could pass of hypocrisy at various levels. The article explains that 40% of MIT's grad students are "international". This means MIT's problem is a BUSINESS problem. At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. This is a business fighting for their revenue sources. And they have every right --even the responsibility-- to do so. I respect that. No issues there so long as everyone is honest about it.
The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country. What we don't have is affordable schools (and books, etc.). A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it. Not so with us-born students. Particularly given the state of the economy, unemployment, etc.
This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.
This isn't to say immigration isn't good. I am not anti-immigrant at all. That would mean being against what allowed my own family to LEGALLY come to the US eons ago. No. My problem is with the fear-mongering that goes along with these arguments. It's dishonest and unnecessary.
It is OK to say we want immigrants because they are important to our continued cultural and economic growth. It's OK to say we want refugees because it is important to continue to define ourselves as a caring and socially conscious people. These things don't need to be embellished with "if we don't let immigrants in nobody is going to start companies, no jobs will be created and no innovation will be had". Sorry, immigrants don't have a monopoly on this. And they sure as heck don't have magical powers. We have lots of very capable and creating people already in the country. Let's don't diminish them to dumber-than-a-rock status.
As for MIT and other universities. They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students". I can respect that. They are, after all, businesses.
On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents. The problem is very few can justify spending over $200K on a university education today. That's what these universities are trying to protect.
- hypersoar 10y agoThe article, as you say, mentions international graduate students. Most of these are probably funded by grants or the university itself (as is the case for most STEM graduate students in the US). So I doubt MIT - or any university - is making money off them. Undergraduates, however, are a different matter.
- tnecniv 10y agoThe university gets some income from graduate labor. Grad students write papers about work their PI gets funding from the NSF/whoever for. PIs then write a new grant awarded based on their proposal and prior work. The university then takes some percentage of the grant off the top. How that compares to expenditures needed to pay for the education of PhD students by the school, I do not know.
- tonmoy 10y agoBut that does not differentiate between US and non-US students at all. The original argument was that non-US students generate more revenue for the schools.
- lkowalcz 10y agoThere is a huge difference in how universities treat their Masters vs. PhD students. Indeed, universities are not making loads of money off international PhD students (most receive free tuition, a stipend, etc). However, international Masters students are cash cows for most universities (most pay full price -- or someone does for them).
- zzrg 10y agoI attended MIT for undergrad as well as master's. Most master's students I knew did not pay tuition (it was typically covered by their lab or through being a teaching assistant). On balance I wouldn't describe MIT master's students as "cash cows" for the university.
- enkid 10y ago