7 ms·

A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

155 points by bikenaga 11mo ago

bikenaga 11mo ago
Abstract: "Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades. Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. These results highlight the value that the US derives from training foreign scientists - not only when they stay, but even when they leave."
- SimianSci 11mo ago
  > "US Technology benfits from these graduates' work even if they leave." Can someone please substatiate this claim? Many people I know are begining to question this and Id like to know more.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - integralid 11mo ago
    You are quoting abstract of a scientific paper dedicated to this issue. The one linked by the OP. (arguably is not an easy read, but if you're looking for hard data is probably worth giving a shot)
- GolfPopper 11mo ago
  >data from 1980 through 2024 This percentage is going to go up sharply in near future.
bell-cot 11mo ago
[flagged]
- stackghost 11mo ago
  Gosh what a disingenuous comment. Do you really, actually, not comprehend the difference between a national STEM economy and a fast food restaurant, and how the two situations are not at all analogous, or were you just trying to come up with something snappy?
  - delaminator 11mo ago
    foreigner comes to US to buy STEM education completes it, leaves
    - programmarchy 11mo ago
      Academia is more than a transaction. It's a social good. One that's also subsidized by the US taxpayer.
      - ribosometronome 11mo ago
        If we were to compare it to a transaction, I think something like California exporting alfalfa to Saudi Arabia might make more sense. We've only but so much water to use and it's far from absurd to question if it makes sense to let our limited resources get drained for exporting things elsewhere.
        8note 11mo ago
        if it didnt make sense, woupdnt the water be going to something else? the incentives might not be set up for the best market, but Saudi Arabia im sure is willing to outbid just about any other use for that water
      - bell-cot 11mo ago
        Are you referring to the taxpayer support of state (not private) colleges, which subsidizes the tuition of in-state students? Foreign student don't get that subsidized rate. Or do you mean the taxpayer-supported research - that anyone with an internet connection can download the results of, from anywhere in the world, without paying a penny of tuition?
epicureanideal 11mo ago
1/4 within 15 years doesn’t sound like a huge problem.. if it were 80% within 5 years, ok you’d have my attention.
- tkgally 11mo ago
  It doesn't sound like a lot to me, either. I have known many people who moved to another country for graduate study. Some of them ended up settling in that country, but others pursued further study or employment in yet other countries. And perhaps the largest group among my acquaintances are those who eventually moved back to their home countries. They feel more comfortable there, they have family there, or, in many cases, returning home is what they intended to do all along.
- zipy124 11mo ago
  It really depends on which 25% it is. Is it evenly distributed or is it the best and brightest, or the worst who are leaving. In addition, its institutional knowledge you are losing. I care much more about losing the guy with 15 years of experience than a fresh post-doc.
standardUser 11mo ago
What does it mean to "leave" the US? I know several people with advanced degrees in the sciences who had children in Europe and raised their kids there for years, but eventually came back. One family returned to Europe a second time. When you have a company or university sponsoring you it's not too difficult to move freely, so "leaving" feels like a moving target for this particular socioeconomic group.
slwvx 11mo ago
A more positive-sum view is that the US is bringing the rest of the world up in science every time it exports a PhD.
- M3L0NM4N 11mo ago
  Depends pretty heavily on the destination of the export, i.e. not China.
  - mattnewton 11mo ago
    not sure I understand, I read a lot of research papers from China.
    - sailfast 11mo ago
      My read: China is seen as a serious geopolitical rival that the United States must beat in a shooting or Cold or AI or <insert here> war. As a result PHDs to China as an export would be a negative impact, not a positive one potentially.
      - nobodyandproud 11mo ago
        When looking at China, this fable has been on my mind for the longest even as I’d hoped that market forces would liberalize it: https://fablesofaesop.com/the-eagle-and-the-arrow.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-eagle-and-the-arrow.html Obviously, any hopes evaporated with China’s heavy-handed approach to Hong Kong.
        komali2 11mo ago
        Or their constant threats against Taiwan, or their oppression of LGBT people in their borders, or their genocide against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, or their heel-turn into racialized nationalism (Han Chauvinism).
      - seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
casey2 11mo ago
I'm sure most of these are foreign students. Giving away an edge, no. Scamming them? Perhaps.
4ndrewl 11mo ago
Nope, it's just growing an export business.
cyberax 11mo ago
Well. Duh. The US PERM process is a nightmare. And it's not just the requirements and regional quotas. It's also the complete opacity of the process, with the USCIS taking _years_ to process straightforward applications in some cases. No wonder people just give up and leave.
- doctorwho42 11mo ago
  Dude, seriously. I'm a citizen and work in a lab, and I have a world expert in my lab... One of maybe 5 in the world, Canadian... And the difficulty for him to stay is insane. If you asked any American how hard he should have it, they'd probably expect he just needed to fill out a form, pay $150, and wait 1-2 years.
vatsachak 11mo ago
And other countries probably have it worse
Mistletoe 11mo ago
I’m a US sixth generation or more citizen and a scientist and I want to leave if the next election doesn’t go wildly different than the 2024 one. The brain drain is real. It’s sad to see it happen in your own country.
- Fomite 11mo ago
  The number of colleagues who have gone from "Eh, maybe a sabbatical year..." to "Yes, I am actively looking" is really frightening.
msteffen 11mo ago
My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more help finding a job in industry after they graduate. Given all that, where are professors supposed to find and hire students who don't want to stay in academia themselves? I think a lot of these students wind up being aspiring immigrants, and I'm not surprised that a lot of them would also have a hard time finding a place for themselves after graduating and that many of them would leave. Also, the abstract seems to argue that that US still benefits greatly from this arrangement: "though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share."
- materials4028 11mo ago
  > much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available Expanding on this a bit, insight credited to bonoboTP: in a steady state the number of junior faculty positions will only open up at the same rate as current faculty retires. But each faculty member is expected to train dozens of students that are all in principle qualified for such jobs. Therefore, the vast majority, let's say 95%, of PhD graduates have to take industry jobs, there is no way around it. But this does not seem to be the goal of the 95%, hence the incredibly tight job market. Returning to their home country for a faculty job acts as another release valve, but sooner or later those will be filled as well, except in countries in the rapidly expanding phase in terms of university education. The tenure system is incredibly broken as a result. Ideally, I think there needs to be more non-faculty careers available for PhD graduates either outside or inside academia. After all, there is clearly some value in the work a PhD student does, otherwise they would not be paid. Perhaps we can have public or semi-public research institutions that hire these scientists for actual development. Most likely this will require an upstream incentive change so that grants are awarded to these newly minted organizations. Universities charge a large overhead in part to cover the "tuition" for the PhD students, which is really a meaningless number since it's taken out of the same check they give you the remainder of. If we just strip out this part and give most of it to the scientist, economically it should be a viable salary.
light_hue_1 11mo ago
The conversation has radically changed. 10-15 years ago my foreign grad students all wanted to stay. Only question was how. There was always a big crowd who found the process of staying in the US painful, random, humiliating, and sometimes even downright abusive, so they went home. What has really changed is China. That's what this paper shows too. Many of the Chinese students want go back home. 10-15 years ago when I would talk to grad students from China most wanted freedom and democracy. Now most tell me about how the Western system has failed and how a centralized government is more efficient. Between making it harder to stay, China changing the narrative on dictatorships, and the West doing a horrific job in the last decade on pretty much every front, yeah, we're going to see a lot of folks move back. Note: This is at a top-tier US university.
- paganel 11mo ago
  > China changing the narrative on dictatorships There was no "change of narrative", the West just stopped delivering, similar to what happened to the Soviet system starting with the 1970s (and which ended the way it did by the early 1990s).
- seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
  Even 10 years they wanted to stay. I was at Microsoft China at the time, and management would complain about Google or Facebook in CA still getting the best prospects from Qinghua/PKU. It wasn't about freedom or democracy at all, they just wanted big paychecks without the 996. Today it is an easier case to stay, although 996 is still a thing. Still, if you can make your FU money by age 35 (and it still has to be by age 35 according to a relative), you have it set.
irishcoffee 11mo ago
Eventually leave. So compelling.
Figs 11mo ago
Giving away? It's currently screaming in the ears and flogging the ass of everyone to get the fuck out and stay out.
ruralfam 11mo ago
Daughter in the Material Science Phd progam at major state university with "world class" MS program. Vast majority of her peers are from abroad. Met some. All were the nicest, smartest folks you have ever met. I guess a benefit is that the probability of them leaving may help to increase the teamwork aspect in the program. But that is a guess. Great group of folks who hopefully might help change the world. Went to the recent Phd presentation where recent Phd graduates were honored. Let me tell you... hard to describe how inspiring these folks are. (MS is a pretty hard subject, with amazing applications. You may be thanking one guy who recently got his Phd should you ever get cancer.) Glad our universities welcome talent not demographics. HTH, RF.
resters 11mo ago
It's the second (so far bc he hasn't ruled out a third) presidential term for a strongly anti-immigrant / anti-immigration president who has a lot of support domestically. Immigrants are being chased out of the US in record numbers. Many of my friends with brown skin (second generation immigrants) are worried their kids will be harrassed by ICE, etc. The sad fact is that there are a LOT of Americans who deeply resent when someone from another country comes to the US, works hard, and earns a prosperous and happy life. The US is now led by an emotional revenge-driven crusade against the American Dream, against capitalism, against the "melting pot" that fuels culture and innovation. It's a weird kind of revenge idiocracy going on right now. In case it's not obvious, many of us here are deeply ashamed of what is going on and we will make it right eventually. I'm personally looking forward to the lawsuits that end up paying people mistreated by ICE significant sums of money, give them flights back to the US, etc. The US has a labor shortage and a talent shortage right now, we need the best and brightest, the most hard working, etc., not the lazy ones who think they are owed something and believe the orange clown.
- lingrush4 11mo ago
  Sorry to ruin your mudslinging, but if you read the second sentence of the linked study, you'll see the American voters' choice of president has nothing to do with this: > Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades
  - jessetemp 11mo ago
    Sorry to ruin your ruining, but if you read past the abstract and look at the data, you'll see it tends to correlate with whether a democrat or republican is in office. Immigration policy is also mentioned in the discussion. > Given these findings, a corollary question is what attracts foreign graduate students to the US and leads them to stay. Prior research points to immigration policy—a subject of perennial public interest—having a large effect on stay rates
  - resters 11mo ago
    Not true. The article asserts that immigration policy is a big driver of "stay rates" for immigrants. Also, I did not assert that either party is "good" on immigration. The US should relax restrictions and allow many more immigrants to enter/study/work/live. If we really want growth, fully open borders would double world GDP.
jongjong 11mo ago
Knowledge and intelligence are wasted outside of the US. You could build great stuff but if you're not in the US, your chance of success is extremely low because the media algorithms will work against you. Not to mention regulations. In Europe, it felt like politicians were being paid to suppress tech. I'm jealous of tech people who live in media-sovereign countries like the US, China or Russia who don't have to experience algorithm discrimination. IMO, tech/science people who leave the US before accumulating big money are making a mistake. They underestimate how rigged the tech industry is. You've got to leverage the rigging. You either benefit from the rigging or you are victim of it. I cannot wrap my mind around people who are born in the US and leave. People don't understand how lucky and privileged they are before it's gone.
- s5300 11mo ago
  [dead]
gok 11mo ago
Yes.
travisgriggs 11mo ago
I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american education" that is now 20+ years old. As the students (children) go through the programs, they are finding it increasingly more hostile to live and study here. So they end up wanting to "go back home". The Xenophobic rhetoric, as well as the policies, are having an effect. He does not see this as a good thing at all. Multiple of my children have considered moving abroad to study. It's weird to sit between them and their frustration of the system, and their grandparents (our parents) who seem to think that the crap they're embibing off of fox news, all so that advertisers can target/fleece the older generation, will actually lead to good for their grandchildren.
- imgabe 11mo ago
  Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition. Today they are bloated with administration that is nothing but a cost center, meanwhile they eliminate tenured professorships and have classes taught by tenuous adjunct faculty who are paid poverty wages. Universities could easily right the ship by cutting the administration and focusing on teaching and research, but the people who need to make the decision to do that are the ones who would be cut.
  - aleph_minus_one 11mo ago
    > Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition. I guess it is not strictly necessary, but it brings in a lot more money, which the university is of course very eager to take.
  - Fomite 11mo ago
    Continual cuts to both state funding and federal research support is a large part of it for public universities. Essentially, every time there is a major budget crisis, state support gets slashed, and it never gets put back when things get better. Tuition is one of the few levers left, and while people will object to tuition hikes for in-state students, very few people will do the same for foreign students.
globalnode 11mo ago
my view for a long time has been that the usa is a net importer of talent and ideas. that its cheaper to have someone spend 20 odd years training in another country and then just lure them in with the promise of big $... isnt that how its been working? or is this some new spin.
advisedwang 11mo ago
The more important question is: what is the rate of scientists coming in vs going out? If they are in balance, then it looks a lot less of a problem. It may even be the case that because of the desirability of working in the US for US institutions the US is gaining the best from all around the world and shipping out a more mixed ability set.
- neuah 11mo ago
  "Using new data which tracks US-trained STEM PhDs through 2024, we show that despite foreign nationals comprising nearly 50% of trainees, only 10% leave the US within five years of graduating, and only 25% within 15 years." That sounds like net benefit for the US. Foreign nationals come, the US sells them (overpriced) education, they do relatively low-paid but high-value PhD research, and then most of them stay and continue to contribute to US research endeavors and the economy. This is such an enviable position, and this administration wants to close the doors? This is the secret sauce. This is what has made america great.
rolandr 11mo ago
"Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating." I believe there will be a significant "discontinuity" in the data beginning in 2025. Likely along the lines of (1) US-born science majors going abroad for their PhD's (and likely staying there afterwards), and (2) a major decline in foreign students coming to the US. Blocking disbursement of ongoing grants, immediate and dramatic slashing funding for the sciences, holding up universities under pain of blocking federal funding, eliminating fellowships, firing government scientists, stuffing agencies and commissions with politically appointed yes men, having oaths of fealty in all but name, deporting and blocking return of foreign students, and many more actions of similar character tend to fo that. One of the greatest national scientific establishments was irreparably damaged in a matter of months. No discussion, no process -- just pulling the rug out. The US will coast for a few years on the technologies that just popped out of the university pipeline of development, but that pipeline is now essentially broken.
- gpt5 11mo ago
  You'd very likely be wrong. People said the same thing in Trump's first cycle. We tend to overestimate the short term effects due to polarization and the constant media cycle.
  - daveguy 11mo ago
    Dumpty's first cycle still had a few sane people pulling his puppet strings.
  - kergonath 11mo ago
    What happens at the NIH and NSF has absolutely no parallel in his first term. Don’t kid yourself, this is not more of the same.
cavisne 11mo ago
“40% move to China” This is the plan not a coincidence. China pays huge “grants” to their citizens to come to the US, get educated, work in big tech/science, then bring it all home.
- kragen 11mo ago
  Probably almost 40% of them came from China in the first place, because China has almost 40% of the candidates who are accepted to US grad programs in the first place. And, even without any grants, returning to China probably seems a lot more appealing than returning to Nigeria, Paraguay, or Bangladesh, whose acceptance rates are already handicapped by the much lower quality of undergraduate education available there.
- materials4028 11mo ago
  If this is true (I doubt it happens at scale), then the US got to benefit from some severely underpaid labor for a couple years at no cost to the taxpayer. What's there not to like?
  - secondcoming 11mo ago
    It happens at scale. UK universities are also heavily subsidised by Chinese students. I also, where I am, I don't really see these students working in part-time jobs to pay the bills.
    - neuah 11mo ago
      I assume the underpaid labor they were talking about was the PhD.
      - secondcoming 11mo ago
        PhDs get paid though?
- maxglute 11mo ago
  Thousand talent tier incentive is drop in the bucket, most sea turtles return because only so high you can climb in US with cold war bamboo ceiling. Past certain point, both US PRC can cut big checks, PRC lets a yellow face climb to top.
kragen 11mo ago
The grad-student system in science at US R1 universities is sort of like a dollar auction. You know how a dollar auction works? I have a dollar bill, and I'll give it to whoever bids the highest for it—as long as both they and the #2 bidder pay me their final bids. The #2 bidder gets nothing. Bidding can start at 5¢. Once the bid goes over a dollar, the two remaining bidders are no longer competing to win free money; they're jockeying to lose less. It typically goes up to 2 to 5 dollars before one of them decides to cut their losses. Numerous doctoral students (and postdocs, and adjuncts) are competing for a much smaller number of tenure-track positions with their research work. If their publication record looks just a little better than the #2 candidate, they can escape from the postdoc grind and land a nice assistant professorship. Then it's only seven more years of busting their ass before they find out whether they washed out, or are set for life with a cushy associate professorship, maybe a full professorship. People are willing to sacrifice a lot for that. But the vast majority of those who make the sacrifice don't make it, like the #2 bidder in the dollar auction. They put in years on somewhat-above-minimum-wage grad-student and postdoc stipends, doing incredibly difficult and sometimes dangerous work, often postponing childbearing, leaving behind their families each time they have to move to a new university, and either leaving behind their intimate partners or uprooting them as well. All of that redounds to the glory of the PI who runs the lab they work in—but many of those doing all that work regret the sacrifice. Scientific progress isn't just a matter of doling out research grants and possessing fancy lab equipment. It needs talent, but that isn't nearly enough—the talented people need to work incredibly hard for many years to make real progress. For decades the US has been recruiting the top talent from the rest of the world with this dollar-auction game, paying them peanuts to sacrifice the best years of their lives. A doctorate doesn't sound like a bad life to me, really. But you have to feel that the system, like minor-league baseball, is kind of taking advantage of doctoral students' hopes and dreams to get the rather astounding rate of scientific progress we see today (at least by some measures). It funds public goods for everyone out of those sacrifices. The least the US could do would be to show a little more gratitude by guaranteeing them permanent US residency after they graduate, but they don't even get that—many people are kicked out of the US, where they've spent most of their adult lives, when they wash out of the academic pipeline. And the current deplorable administration has promised to worsen this already deplorable situation.
d_burfoot 11mo ago
Second sentence of abstract: > Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades The US has been completely dominant in technology innovation for the last several decades. So, the answer is no: the loss of 1/4 of the STEM scientists is not important.
mikert89 11mo ago
The is a psyop, there arent that many science jobs, and a PHD from mississipi state is not "talent"
- selimthegrim 11mo ago
  Even Mississippi State has a bar to clear - by the way, I know of PhDs from Jackson State who are faculty at CMU
- greenie_beans 11mo ago
  > a PHD from mississipi state is not "talent" why not
falcor84 11mo ago
How does this compare to the fraction of foreign students studying in other countries and choosing to remain there?
- kragen 11mo ago
  It's hard to compare across countries. No other country has anything like the US's research-university system, although China is working on it. But foreign students in China probably aren't hoping to be able to live there for the rest of their lives—China's immigration policies are considerably more xenophobic. The UK might be the closest comparison? Generally speaking, American exceptionalism is nonsense. The US isn't the only free country, the freest country, the only democratic country, the most democratic country, the richest country, the most diverse country, a city on the hill, divinely inspired, uniquely blessed by God, the only capitalist country, any of that nonsense. It was some of those when Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, but it hasn't been for decades. But the US's research university system is unique in the world, and nobody else even comes close.
  - msla 10mo ago
    These days American exceptionalism generally comes from people believing America is exceptionally bad.
godelski 11mo ago
> 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. This is a feature not a bug. For people missing the abstract, here it is and I'm giving emphesis to an important part. Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades. ***Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. These results highlight the value that the US derives from training foreign scientists - not only when they stay, but even when they leave.*** Not only that but there's the whole cultural export too. Come live in America for 4-10 years and you're going to be acclimated to some of the cultures and customs. You don't think you're going to go home and take some of that with you? Conversely, America isn't a "melting-pot" because of a monoculture, but because it brings many different cultures together. The whole education system is as much a part of "cultural warfare" as is the movie industry, music industry, or even Korea's K-Pop scene (which has been incredibly successful, just like Thailand's program for restaurants in foreign countries). While personally I'd staple Green Cards to every Ph.D. given to a foreign national, I simultaneously want them to go back to their home countries and make their countries better. To take the good from America, leave the bad, and to build lasting relationships between the countries. That's a win-win situation. Both countries benefit from this! As well as the people. (I'd staple Green Cards so the person can make that choice.) I haven't read the whole paper (nor will I), but I get the impression that much of this will not be addressed in it. Perfectly okay, they're focused on the easier to measure parts. But let's also not forget that there is a whole lot more to the bigger picture here. A whole lot more than my comment even implies.
ggm 11mo ago
Let me ask you this: when trained scientists from {other economy} arrive in the US, do you ask yourself why? Is it of necessity because {other economy} is "worse" and US is "better" or can it be personal, unrelated, case-by-case? What is a natural, good flow for people between economies in this instance? is it zero or 100% where along this arc does it lie, and why?
pfdietz 11mo ago
The US is going to lose its edge regardless. American exceptionalism after WW2 was always going to be temporary. With just 4% of the world's population the US could not stay on top of anything forever.
YossarianFrPrez 11mo ago
Not only do people leave the US but stay in Academia, plenty of people leave the research pipeline after receiving years and years of highly specialized, expert training. As an American who used to work in Tech and is currently getting a PhD, the geographic constraints on the (top tier) academic job market are more severe than people outside of Academia typically realize. It's a shame, because if it were the norm that science could happen by university-trained experts but in non-university institutions, we could a) fix the leaky pipeline, and b) see greater scientific progress. What I mean is that if you don't like the company you work for in, say, SF, you can switch companies without having to switch houses. In Academia... it's akin to going to conservatory for classical music: you have to travel to where the orchestral openings are. This is a bit of a legacy problem from Wilhelm von Humboldt's idea to combine teaching and research, which led to the modern university system. I'm far from the first person to say this, btw. Convergent Research's "Focused Research Organization" concept as well as The Arc and Astera Institutes are a few recent examples of people trying to provide escape routes from having to deal the large degree of "institutional tech/systems debt" in university contexts. For a great essay on why this is necessary, see "A Vision of Meta-science" (highly recommended if you are interested) [1]. The good news is that people are starting to come around to the idea that the scientific ecosystem would benefit from more diversity in the shape, size, and form of science-generating institutions.=The NSF just announced a new program to fund such "independent research organizations." I think this could give people who want to go into the sciences as a second career and who have a bit of an entrepreneurial tendency a new kind of Job opportunity [2]. We talk about Founders all of the time in Tech, we should probably have some equivalent in the best possible sense of the term, in the Sciences. [1] https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/ https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/ [2] https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-new-initiative-launch-scale-new-generation?sf230338471=1 https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-new-initiative-launch...
PaulHoule 11mo ago
Education is one of our greatest exports. What's wrong with people getting training here and going back home to enrich their community? If they don't do that we're going to be accused of promoting "brain drain".
gigel82 11mo ago
US doesn't train anyone, that headline would only make sense somewhere in... every other country in the world (more or less), where the government actually subsidizes education (a lot of the times up to 100%). In the US, people pay for their own training, so they can damn well go wherever they please.
rdtsc 11mo ago
> We use SED data to measure the number of PhD graduates in our focal STEM fields who were non-US citizens at the time of graduation. [...] > Emigration rates across PhD cohorts correlate strongly with the foreign national share of graduates ( = 0.86 to 0.95) [...] In all cohorts, the 5-year (15-year) emigration rate is approximately 25% (50%) of the foreign national share I am not sure if they did this on purpose or not but they missed putting that critical part in the title or right in the abstract. The majority here are not US citizens but foreign nationals. And, most importantly, I couldn't find where they mentioned (or maybe they don't) that these students are studying in US on non-immigrant visas. They're not supposed to or expected to stay after they are done studying. Some stay if they find a company to sponsor them for an internship (Optional Practical Training) but unless they change their visa type they're still expected to leave for their home country. Without that part highlighted it makes it sound like these US citizens who were born and grew up in US, went to universities here, and then graduated and went to work in China or Europe or something. There is a number of those but, it's not the majority. Maybe they can study just that cohort separately, I think that would be a more interesting thing to look at.
evanjrowley 11mo ago
>though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. Perhaps it is a good thing that innovation is not encumbered by patents as much in other countries as it has been in the US.
zkmon 11mo ago
But USA might be receiving half of the scientists trained outside. And these might happen to be brighter and hard-working.
turingbook 11mo ago
So, three-quarters of the people remained. That's a good result.

155 points by bikenaga 11mo ago

Abstract: "Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades. Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. These results highlight the value that the US derives from training foreign scientists - not only when they stay, but even when they leave."

SimianSci 11mo ago
> "US Technology benfits from these graduates' work even if they leave." Can someone please substatiate this claim? Many people I know are begining to question this and Id like to know more.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- integralid 11mo ago
  You are quoting abstract of a scientific paper dedicated to this issue. The one linked by the OP. (arguably is not an easy read, but if you're looking for hard data is probably worth giving a shot)
GolfPopper 11mo ago
>data from 1980 through 2024 This percentage is going to go up sharply in near future.

bell-cot 11mo ago

[flagged]

stackghost 11mo ago
Gosh what a disingenuous comment. Do you really, actually, not comprehend the difference between a national STEM economy and a fast food restaurant, and how the two situations are not at all analogous, or were you just trying to come up with something snappy?
- delaminator 11mo ago
  foreigner comes to US to buy STEM education completes it, leaves
  - programmarchy 11mo ago
    Academia is more than a transaction. It's a social good. One that's also subsidized by the US taxpayer.
    - ribosometronome 11mo ago
      If we were to compare it to a transaction, I think something like California exporting alfalfa to Saudi Arabia might make more sense. We've only but so much water to use and it's far from absurd to question if it makes sense to let our limited resources get drained for exporting things elsewhere.
      - 8note 11mo ago
        if it didnt make sense, woupdnt the water be going to something else? the incentives might not be set up for the best market, but Saudi Arabia im sure is willing to outbid just about any other use for that water
    - bell-cot 11mo ago
      Are you referring to the taxpayer support of state (not private) colleges, which subsidizes the tuition of in-state students? Foreign student don't get that subsidized rate. Or do you mean the taxpayer-supported research - that anyone with an internet connection can download the results of, from anywhere in the world, without paying a penny of tuition?

epicureanideal 11mo ago

1/4 within 15 years doesn’t sound like a huge problem.. if it were 80% within 5 years, ok you’d have my attention.

tkgally 11mo ago
It doesn't sound like a lot to me, either. I have known many people who moved to another country for graduate study. Some of them ended up settling in that country, but others pursued further study or employment in yet other countries. And perhaps the largest group among my acquaintances are those who eventually moved back to their home countries. They feel more comfortable there, they have family there, or, in many cases, returning home is what they intended to do all along.
zipy124 11mo ago
It really depends on which 25% it is. Is it evenly distributed or is it the best and brightest, or the worst who are leaving. In addition, its institutional knowledge you are losing. I care much more about losing the guy with 15 years of experience than a fresh post-doc.

standardUser 11mo ago

What does it mean to "leave" the US? I know several people with advanced degrees in the sciences who had children in Europe and raised their kids there for years, but eventually came back. One family returned to Europe a second time. When you have a company or university sponsoring you it's not too difficult to move freely, so "leaving" feels like a moving target for this particular socioeconomic group.

slwvx 11mo ago

A more positive-sum view is that the US is bringing the rest of the world up in science every time it exports a PhD.

M3L0NM4N 11mo ago
Depends pretty heavily on the destination of the export, i.e. not China.
- mattnewton 11mo ago
  not sure I understand, I read a lot of research papers from China.
  - sailfast 11mo ago
    My read: China is seen as a serious geopolitical rival that the United States must beat in a shooting or Cold or AI or <insert here> war. As a result PHDs to China as an export would be a negative impact, not a positive one potentially.
    - nobodyandproud 11mo ago
      When looking at China, this fable has been on my mind for the longest even as I’d hoped that market forces would liberalize it: https://fablesofaesop.com/the-eagle-and-the-arrow.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-eagle-and-the-arrow.html Obviously, any hopes evaporated with China’s heavy-handed approach to Hong Kong.
      - komali2 11mo ago
        Or their constant threats against Taiwan, or their oppression of LGBT people in their borders, or their genocide against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, or their heel-turn into racialized nationalism (Han Chauvinism).
    - seanmcdirmid 11mo ago

casey2 11mo ago

I'm sure most of these are foreign students. Giving away an edge, no. Scamming them? Perhaps.

4ndrewl 11mo ago

Nope, it's just growing an export business.

cyberax 11mo ago

Well. Duh. The US PERM process is a nightmare. And it's not just the requirements and regional quotas. It's also the complete opacity of the process, with the USCIS taking _years_ to process straightforward applications in some cases. No wonder people just give up and leave.

doctorwho42 11mo ago
Dude, seriously. I'm a citizen and work in a lab, and I have a world expert in my lab... One of maybe 5 in the world, Canadian... And the difficulty for him to stay is insane. If you asked any American how hard he should have it, they'd probably expect he just needed to fill out a form, pay $150, and wait 1-2 years.

vatsachak 11mo ago

And other countries probably have it worse

Mistletoe 11mo ago

I’m a US sixth generation or more citizen and a scientist and I want to leave if the next election doesn’t go wildly different than the 2024 one. The brain drain is real. It’s sad to see it happen in your own country.

Fomite 11mo ago
The number of colleagues who have gone from "Eh, maybe a sabbatical year..." to "Yes, I am actively looking" is really frightening.

msteffen 11mo ago

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more help finding a job in industry after they graduate. Given all that, where are professors supposed to find and hire students who don't want to stay in academia themselves? I think a lot of these students wind up being aspiring immigrants, and I'm not surprised that a lot of them would also have a hard time finding a place for themselves after graduating and that many of them would leave. Also, the abstract seems to argue that that US still benefits greatly from this arrangement: "though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share."

materials4028 11mo ago
> much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available Expanding on this a bit, insight credited to bonoboTP: in a steady state the number of junior faculty positions will only open up at the same rate as current faculty retires. But each faculty member is expected to train dozens of students that are all in principle qualified for such jobs. Therefore, the vast majority, let's say 95%, of PhD graduates have to take industry jobs, there is no way around it. But this does not seem to be the goal of the 95%, hence the incredibly tight job market. Returning to their home country for a faculty job acts as another release valve, but sooner or later those will be filled as well, except in countries in the rapidly expanding phase in terms of university education. The tenure system is incredibly broken as a result. Ideally, I think there needs to be more non-faculty careers available for PhD graduates either outside or inside academia. After all, there is clearly some value in the work a PhD student does, otherwise they would not be paid. Perhaps we can have public or semi-public research institutions that hire these scientists for actual development. Most likely this will require an upstream incentive change so that grants are awarded to these newly minted organizations. Universities charge a large overhead in part to cover the "tuition" for the PhD students, which is really a meaningless number since it's taken out of the same check they give you the remainder of. If we just strip out this part and give most of it to the scientist, economically it should be a viable salary.

light_hue_1 11mo ago

The conversation has radically changed. 10-15 years ago my foreign grad students all wanted to stay. Only question was how. There was always a big crowd who found the process of staying in the US painful, random, humiliating, and sometimes even downright abusive, so they went home. What has really changed is China. That's what this paper shows too. Many of the Chinese students want go back home. 10-15 years ago when I would talk to grad students from China most wanted freedom and democracy. Now most tell me about how the Western system has failed and how a centralized government is more efficient. Between making it harder to stay, China changing the narrative on dictatorships, and the West doing a horrific job in the last decade on pretty much every front, yeah, we're going to see a lot of folks move back. Note: This is at a top-tier US university.

paganel 11mo ago
> China changing the narrative on dictatorships There was no "change of narrative", the West just stopped delivering, similar to what happened to the Soviet system starting with the 1970s (and which ended the way it did by the early 1990s).
seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
Even 10 years they wanted to stay. I was at Microsoft China at the time, and management would complain about Google or Facebook in CA still getting the best prospects from Qinghua/PKU. It wasn't about freedom or democracy at all, they just wanted big paychecks without the 996. Today it is an easier case to stay, although 996 is still a thing. Still, if you can make your FU money by age 35 (and it still has to be by age 35 according to a relative), you have it set.

irishcoffee 11mo ago

Eventually leave. So compelling.

Figs 11mo ago

Giving away? It's currently screaming in the ears and flogging the ass of everyone to get the fuck out and stay out.

ruralfam 11mo ago

Daughter in the Material Science Phd progam at major state university with "world class" MS program. Vast majority of her peers are from abroad. Met some. All were the nicest, smartest folks you have ever met. I guess a benefit is that the probability of them leaving may help to increase the teamwork aspect in the program. But that is a guess. Great group of folks who hopefully might help change the world. Went to the recent Phd presentation where recent Phd graduates were honored. Let me tell you... hard to describe how inspiring these folks are. (MS is a pretty hard subject, with amazing applications. You may be thanking one guy who recently got his Phd should you ever get cancer.) Glad our universities welcome talent not demographics. HTH, RF.

resters 11mo ago

It's the second (so far bc he hasn't ruled out a third) presidential term for a strongly anti-immigrant / anti-immigration president who has a lot of support domestically. Immigrants are being chased out of the US in record numbers. Many of my friends with brown skin (second generation immigrants) are worried their kids will be harrassed by ICE, etc. The sad fact is that there are a LOT of Americans who deeply resent when someone from another country comes to the US, works hard, and earns a prosperous and happy life. The US is now led by an emotional revenge-driven crusade against the American Dream, against capitalism, against the "melting pot" that fuels culture and innovation. It's a weird kind of revenge idiocracy going on right now. In case it's not obvious, many of us here are deeply ashamed of what is going on and we will make it right eventually. I'm personally looking forward to the lawsuits that end up paying people mistreated by ICE significant sums of money, give them flights back to the US, etc. The US has a labor shortage and a talent shortage right now, we need the best and brightest, the most hard working, etc., not the lazy ones who think they are owed something and believe the orange clown.

lingrush4 11mo ago
Sorry to ruin your mudslinging, but if you read the second sentence of the linked study, you'll see the American voters' choice of president has nothing to do with this: > Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades
- jessetemp 11mo ago
  Sorry to ruin your ruining, but if you read past the abstract and look at the data, you'll see it tends to correlate with whether a democrat or republican is in office. Immigration policy is also mentioned in the discussion. > Given these findings, a corollary question is what attracts foreign graduate students to the US and leads them to stay. Prior research points to immigration policy—a subject of perennial public interest—having a large effect on stay rates
- resters 11mo ago
  Not true. The article asserts that immigration policy is a big driver of "stay rates" for immigrants. Also, I did not assert that either party is "good" on immigration. The US should relax restrictions and allow many more immigrants to enter/study/work/live. If we really want growth, fully open borders would double world GDP.

jongjong 11mo ago

Knowledge and intelligence are wasted outside of the US. You could build great stuff but if you're not in the US, your chance of success is extremely low because the media algorithms will work against you. Not to mention regulations. In Europe, it felt like politicians were being paid to suppress tech. I'm jealous of tech people who live in media-sovereign countries like the US, China or Russia who don't have to experience algorithm discrimination. IMO, tech/science people who leave the US before accumulating big money are making a mistake. They underestimate how rigged the tech industry is. You've got to leverage the rigging. You either benefit from the rigging or you are victim of it. I cannot wrap my mind around people who are born in the US and leave. People don't understand how lucky and privileged they are before it's gone.

s5300 11mo ago
[dead]

gok 11mo ago

Yes.

travisgriggs 11mo ago

I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american education" that is now 20+ years old. As the students (children) go through the programs, they are finding it increasingly more hostile to live and study here. So they end up wanting to "go back home". The Xenophobic rhetoric, as well as the policies, are having an effect. He does not see this as a good thing at all. Multiple of my children have considered moving abroad to study. It's weird to sit between them and their frustration of the system, and their grandparents (our parents) who seem to think that the crap they're embibing off of fox news, all so that advertisers can target/fleece the older generation, will actually lead to good for their grandchildren.

imgabe 11mo ago
Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition. Today they are bloated with administration that is nothing but a cost center, meanwhile they eliminate tenured professorships and have classes taught by tenuous adjunct faculty who are paid poverty wages. Universities could easily right the ship by cutting the administration and focusing on teaching and research, but the people who need to make the decision to do that are the ones who would be cut.
- aleph_minus_one 11mo ago
  > Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition. I guess it is not strictly necessary, but it brings in a lot more money, which the university is of course very eager to take.
- Fomite 11mo ago
  Continual cuts to both state funding and federal research support is a large part of it for public universities. Essentially, every time there is a major budget crisis, state support gets slashed, and it never gets put back when things get better. Tuition is one of the few levers left, and while people will object to tuition hikes for in-state students, very few people will do the same for foreign students.

globalnode 11mo ago

my view for a long time has been that the usa is a net importer of talent and ideas. that its cheaper to have someone spend 20 odd years training in another country and then just lure them in with the promise of big $... isnt that how its been working? or is this some new spin.

advisedwang 11mo ago

The more important question is: what is the rate of scientists coming in vs going out? If they are in balance, then it looks a lot less of a problem. It may even be the case that because of the desirability of working in the US for US institutions the US is gaining the best from all around the world and shipping out a more mixed ability set.

neuah 11mo ago
"Using new data which tracks US-trained STEM PhDs through 2024, we show that despite foreign nationals comprising nearly 50% of trainees, only 10% leave the US within five years of graduating, and only 25% within 15 years." That sounds like net benefit for the US. Foreign nationals come, the US sells them (overpriced) education, they do relatively low-paid but high-value PhD research, and then most of them stay and continue to contribute to US research endeavors and the economy. This is such an enviable position, and this administration wants to close the doors? This is the secret sauce. This is what has made america great.

rolandr 11mo ago

"Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating." I believe there will be a significant "discontinuity" in the data beginning in 2025. Likely along the lines of (1) US-born science majors going abroad for their PhD's (and likely staying there afterwards), and (2) a major decline in foreign students coming to the US. Blocking disbursement of ongoing grants, immediate and dramatic slashing funding for the sciences, holding up universities under pain of blocking federal funding, eliminating fellowships, firing government scientists, stuffing agencies and commissions with politically appointed yes men, having oaths of fealty in all but name, deporting and blocking return of foreign students, and many more actions of similar character tend to fo that. One of the greatest national scientific establishments was irreparably damaged in a matter of months. No discussion, no process -- just pulling the rug out. The US will coast for a few years on the technologies that just popped out of the university pipeline of development, but that pipeline is now essentially broken.

gpt5 11mo ago
You'd very likely be wrong. People said the same thing in Trump's first cycle. We tend to overestimate the short term effects due to polarization and the constant media cycle.
- daveguy 11mo ago
  Dumpty's first cycle still had a few sane people pulling his puppet strings.
- kergonath 11mo ago
  What happens at the NIH and NSF has absolutely no parallel in his first term. Don’t kid yourself, this is not more of the same.

cavisne 11mo ago

“40% move to China” This is the plan not a coincidence. China pays huge “grants” to their citizens to come to the US, get educated, work in big tech/science, then bring it all home.

kragen 11mo ago
Probably almost 40% of them came from China in the first place, because China has almost 40% of the candidates who are accepted to US grad programs in the first place. And, even without any grants, returning to China probably seems a lot more appealing than returning to Nigeria, Paraguay, or Bangladesh, whose acceptance rates are already handicapped by the much lower quality of undergraduate education available there.
materials4028 11mo ago
If this is true (I doubt it happens at scale), then the US got to benefit from some severely underpaid labor for a couple years at no cost to the taxpayer. What's there not to like?
- secondcoming 11mo ago
  It happens at scale. UK universities are also heavily subsidised by Chinese students. I also, where I am, I don't really see these students working in part-time jobs to pay the bills.
  - neuah 11mo ago
    I assume the underpaid labor they were talking about was the PhD.
    - secondcoming 11mo ago
      PhDs get paid though?
maxglute 11mo ago
Thousand talent tier incentive is drop in the bucket, most sea turtles return because only so high you can climb in US with cold war bamboo ceiling. Past certain point, both US PRC can cut big checks, PRC lets a yellow face climb to top.

kragen 11mo ago

The grad-student system in science at US R1 universities is sort of like a dollar auction. You know how a dollar auction works? I have a dollar bill, and I'll give it to whoever bids the highest for it—as long as both they and the #2 bidder pay me their final bids. The #2 bidder gets nothing. Bidding can start at 5¢. Once the bid goes over a dollar, the two remaining bidders are no longer competing to win free money; they're jockeying to lose less. It typically goes up to 2 to 5 dollars before one of them decides to cut their losses. Numerous doctoral students (and postdocs, and adjuncts) are competing for a much smaller number of tenure-track positions with their research work. If their publication record looks just a little better than the #2 candidate, they can escape from the postdoc grind and land a nice assistant professorship. Then it's only seven more years of busting their ass before they find out whether they washed out, or are set for life with a cushy associate professorship, maybe a full professorship. People are willing to sacrifice a lot for that. But the vast majority of those who make the sacrifice don't make it, like the #2 bidder in the dollar auction. They put in years on somewhat-above-minimum-wage grad-student and postdoc stipends, doing incredibly difficult and sometimes dangerous work, often postponing childbearing, leaving behind their families each time they have to move to a new university, and either leaving behind their intimate partners or uprooting them as well. All of that redounds to the glory of the PI who runs the lab they work in—but many of those doing all that work regret the sacrifice. Scientific progress isn't just a matter of doling out research grants and possessing fancy lab equipment. It needs talent, but that isn't nearly enough—the talented people need to work incredibly hard for many years to make real progress. For decades the US has been recruiting the top talent from the rest of the world with this dollar-auction game, paying them peanuts to sacrifice the best years of their lives. A doctorate doesn't sound like a bad life to me, really. But you have to feel that the system, like minor-league baseball, is kind of taking advantage of doctoral students' hopes and dreams to get the rather astounding rate of scientific progress we see today (at least by some measures). It funds public goods for everyone out of those sacrifices. The least the US could do would be to show a little more gratitude by guaranteeing them permanent US residency after they graduate, but they don't even get that—many people are kicked out of the US, where they've spent most of their adult lives, when they wash out of the academic pipeline. And the current deplorable administration has promised to worsen this already deplorable situation.

d_burfoot 11mo ago

Second sentence of abstract: > Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades The US has been completely dominant in technology innovation for the last several decades. So, the answer is no: the loss of 1/4 of the STEM scientists is not important.

mikert89 11mo ago

The is a psyop, there arent that many science jobs, and a PHD from mississipi state is not "talent"

selimthegrim 11mo ago
Even Mississippi State has a bar to clear - by the way, I know of PhDs from Jackson State who are faculty at CMU
greenie_beans 11mo ago
> a PHD from mississipi state is not "talent" why not

falcor84 11mo ago

How does this compare to the fraction of foreign students studying in other countries and choosing to remain there?

kragen 11mo ago
It's hard to compare across countries. No other country has anything like the US's research-university system, although China is working on it. But foreign students in China probably aren't hoping to be able to live there for the rest of their lives—China's immigration policies are considerably more xenophobic. The UK might be the closest comparison? Generally speaking, American exceptionalism is nonsense. The US isn't the only free country, the freest country, the only democratic country, the most democratic country, the richest country, the most diverse country, a city on the hill, divinely inspired, uniquely blessed by God, the only capitalist country, any of that nonsense. It was some of those when Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, but it hasn't been for decades. But the US's research university system is unique in the world, and nobody else even comes close.
- msla 10mo ago
  These days American exceptionalism generally comes from people believing America is exceptionally bad.

godelski 11mo ago

> 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. This is a feature not a bug. For people missing the abstract, here it is and I'm giving emphesis to an important part. Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating. Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades. ***Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. These results highlight the value that the US derives from training foreign scientists - not only when they stay, but even when they leave.*** Not only that but there's the whole cultural export too. Come live in America for 4-10 years and you're going to be acclimated to some of the cultures and customs. You don't think you're going to go home and take some of that with you? Conversely, America isn't a "melting-pot" because of a monoculture, but because it brings many different cultures together. The whole education system is as much a part of "cultural warfare" as is the movie industry, music industry, or even Korea's K-Pop scene (which has been incredibly successful, just like Thailand's program for restaurants in foreign countries). While personally I'd staple Green Cards to every Ph.D. given to a foreign national, I simultaneously want them to go back to their home countries and make their countries better. To take the good from America, leave the bad, and to build lasting relationships between the countries. That's a win-win situation. Both countries benefit from this! As well as the people. (I'd staple Green Cards so the person can make that choice.) I haven't read the whole paper (nor will I), but I get the impression that much of this will not be addressed in it. Perfectly okay, they're focused on the easier to measure parts. But let's also not forget that there is a whole lot more to the bigger picture here. A whole lot more than my comment even implies.

ggm 11mo ago

Let me ask you this: when trained scientists from {other economy} arrive in the US, do you ask yourself why? Is it of necessity because {other economy} is "worse" and US is "better" or can it be personal, unrelated, case-by-case? What is a natural, good flow for people between economies in this instance? is it zero or 100% where along this arc does it lie, and why?

pfdietz 11mo ago

The US is going to lose its edge regardless. American exceptionalism after WW2 was always going to be temporary. With just 4% of the world's population the US could not stay on top of anything forever.

YossarianFrPrez 11mo ago

Not only do people leave the US but stay in Academia, plenty of people leave the research pipeline after receiving years and years of highly specialized, expert training. As an American who used to work in Tech and is currently getting a PhD, the geographic constraints on the (top tier) academic job market are more severe than people outside of Academia typically realize. It's a shame, because if it were the norm that science could happen by university-trained experts but in non-university institutions, we could a) fix the leaky pipeline, and b) see greater scientific progress. What I mean is that if you don't like the company you work for in, say, SF, you can switch companies without having to switch houses. In Academia... it's akin to going to conservatory for classical music: you have to travel to where the orchestral openings are. This is a bit of a legacy problem from Wilhelm von Humboldt's idea to combine teaching and research, which led to the modern university system. I'm far from the first person to say this, btw. Convergent Research's "Focused Research Organization" concept as well as The Arc and Astera Institutes are a few recent examples of people trying to provide escape routes from having to deal the large degree of "institutional tech/systems debt" in university contexts. For a great essay on why this is necessary, see "A Vision of Meta-science" (highly recommended if you are interested) [1]. The good news is that people are starting to come around to the idea that the scientific ecosystem would benefit from more diversity in the shape, size, and form of science-generating institutions.=The NSF just announced a new program to fund such "independent research organizations." I think this could give people who want to go into the sciences as a second career and who have a bit of an entrepreneurial tendency a new kind of Job opportunity [2]. We talk about Founders all of the time in Tech, we should probably have some equivalent in the best possible sense of the term, in the Sciences. [1] https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/ https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/ [2] https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-new-initiative-launch-scale-new-generation?sf230338471=1 https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-new-initiative-launch...

PaulHoule 11mo ago

Education is one of our greatest exports. What's wrong with people getting training here and going back home to enrich their community? If they don't do that we're going to be accused of promoting "brain drain".

gigel82 11mo ago

US doesn't train anyone, that headline would only make sense somewhere in... every other country in the world (more or less), where the government actually subsidizes education (a lot of the times up to 100%). In the US, people pay for their own training, so they can damn well go wherever they please.

rdtsc 11mo ago

> We use SED data to measure the number of PhD graduates in our focal STEM fields who were non-US citizens at the time of graduation. [...] > Emigration rates across PhD cohorts correlate strongly with the foreign national share of graduates ( = 0.86 to 0.95) [...] In all cohorts, the 5-year (15-year) emigration rate is approximately 25% (50%) of the foreign national share I am not sure if they did this on purpose or not but they missed putting that critical part in the title or right in the abstract. The majority here are not US citizens but foreign nationals. And, most importantly, I couldn't find where they mentioned (or maybe they don't) that these students are studying in US on non-immigrant visas. They're not supposed to or expected to stay after they are done studying. Some stay if they find a company to sponsor them for an internship (Optional Practical Training) but unless they change their visa type they're still expected to leave for their home country. Without that part highlighted it makes it sound like these US citizens who were born and grew up in US, went to universities here, and then graduated and went to work in China or Europe or something. There is a number of those but, it's not the majority. Maybe they can study just that cohort separately, I think that would be a more interesting thing to look at.

evanjrowley 11mo ago

>though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share, and as large as all other countries combined. Perhaps it is a good thing that innovation is not encumbered by patents as much in other countries as it has been in the US.

zkmon 11mo ago

But USA might be receiving half of the scientists trained outside. And these might happen to be brighter and hard-working.

turingbook 11mo ago

So, three-quarters of the people remained. That's a good result.