3 ms·

So crude as to be worthless. I'll pick one: "The students from India and China were there on various scholarships, indirectly paid for by Joe and Mary. Bummer

by mturmon 14y ago

So crude as to be worthless. I'll pick one: "The students from India and China were there on various scholarships, indirectly paid for by Joe and Mary. Bummer." I went to Cornell. The undergrads from India and China were often from extremely wealthy families (far more so than the average undergrad). They were typically paying close to full boat to an Ivy League school, after all. Currently, here's the guidance on scholarships for international undergrads: "Cornell has a limited amount of funding available for international undergraduates, only 30-40 scholarships are awarded to students in each entering class." That's out of an entering class of 3300, 19% of which were international -- meaning maybe 1 in 20 had a scholarship. For calibration, the Indian undergrad I knew best was in the immediate family of the president of Tata group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group -- $100B in revenue). Now, at some level Cornell was eager to get people of that ilk, just as prospects for future giving. No telling how much special treatment they might get. But in no way was the typical Indian/Chinese undergrad on scholarship (as the figures above indicate). * The picture changes dramatically, of course, if you consider international grad students. These were typically supported by research assistantships or teaching assistantships. But in either case, they were being paid the same ~10K/year as "domestic help" (like me) to do work on government-sponsored research projects (advancing US government interests -- NSF, NIH, and DARPA aren't charities), or to grade papers and hold tutorial sessions. But that's poorly paid, the same deal as offered anyone (US or international). In fact, while there, I held a US government fellowship (NSF) that was closed to foreign students. It was paid for by your hypothetical Joe and Mary. * I think you do have a point that the H1B program is, in many areas, employer-driven to depress wages. But your surrounding narrative is wrong.

graycat 14y ago
No, I am still correct. That some wealthy foreign students went to Cornell is no doubt recent and not at all what I am talking about. If you will read what I wrote, then you will see that there were students from India in a US Midwestern university. They were not wealthy. And at the time there's no way they could have been paying their way. Net, in US universities, even in undergraduate programs, a major fraction of STEM students were from foreign countries, especially India and Taiwan. In simple terms, they were on scholarships of various kinds. Further, again, yet again, this time just for you, over again, no student in a well known college or university pays the full cost. Rarely do they pay more than 1/3rd. E.g., as I have already posted in this thread, Mike Bloomberg gave $100 million to Johns Hopkins, and a founder QUALCOMM recently gave $133 million to the Cornell technical university being built on Roosevelt Island, and this story is standard all across US colleges and universities. At a research university, expect that a professor will get about $500,000 a year from NSF, NIH, etc. About 60%, 300,000, will go to the university as 'overhead'. The remaining $200,000 will cover the professor's salary, travel, equipment, supplies, etc. And a little will go for graduate students. So, again it's Joe and Mary paying for the university. Net, students don't pay the full cost. Instead the full cost is paid by gifts and taxes, taxes, e.g., for Joe and Mary who are still having a tough time paying for their own children to go to college. Some of the taxes go quite directly to the institutions, e.g., all the state schools in NY, MD, CA, the Big Ten, etc. A lot more money goes from tax payers to the universities via NSF and NIH. You mentioned DARPA: There were old rules that the US DoD could not fund work at universities. Long much DARPA (ARPA) work was so 'confidential' that it could not be done in universities. But clearly, e.g., with some of the DARPA Challenge projects, e.g., at CMU and Stanford, some DARPA funding is making its way into universities. Still I doubt that a major fraction of DARPA money goes to universities. Yes, the situation of the NSF flooding the US with foreign STEM students is more extreme in graduate programs. But the NSF money that goes to students is not really because the research projects need the student's labor! No, the money is because the NSF demands that students be supported because the NSF wants to flood the US labor markets with STEM students with graduate degrees. Maybe you believe that you worked hard for your research assistantship, but, really, the NSF, NIH, etc. mostly just want you to add to the US STEM worker pool to keep down costs to US industry and the US 'military-industrial' complex.
- mturmon 14y ago
  You're caught up in your story: "Rarely do they pay more than 1/3rd. E.g., as I have already posted in this thread, Mike Bloomberg gave $100 million to Johns Hopkins, and a founder QUALCOMM recently gave $133 million to the Cornell technical university [...] So, again it's Joe and Mary paying for the university." Wait, is it Joe and Mary footing the bill? Or Mike Bloomberg and Irwin Jacobs (the Qualcomm founder you mention)? And I contend that when the NSF, NIH, or other government agencies give contracts to universities that are in part executed by grad students, that's labor bought and paid for. Not a handout (in part) to foreigners.
  - graycat 14y ago
    "You're caught up in your story:" I just know what the heck I'm talking about. As I wrote in this thread over and over, it's US citizens, via gifts or taxes, e.g., taxes from Joe and Mary, that is paying for most of any education in a well known US college or university. So, in particular, there's no way a foreigner is paying his/her way; the foreigner is getting an education mostly paid for by US citizens. For the graduate student who gets a stipend for work grading papers or working in a lab for a prof, that's mostly just make work. I've done it as a grad student, and I've hired it as a prof. I will say that when I was teaching calculus at a Big Ten school as a grad student I was earning my keep. The NSF wrote into its grant contracts that students must be supported as a way to get more STEM grad students, not because the NSF wanted those students to contribute to 'research' but because the NSF economists did a calculation to see how to increase STEM graduate degree labor in the US labor market. So, sure stockholders of United Technologies, GE, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, etc. like the idea of the NSF generating more STEM Master's degrees, but Joe and Mary can see that their tax money is not getting their children through college but is getting foreign students through grad school to compete with their children should they manage to get through grad school. So Joe and Mary have a right to feel ripped off. "Not a handout (in part) to foreigners." No, that basically is what is going on, and because the NSF insists so, and so insists because the NSF wants, as I explained, to participate in 'US national manpower management', i.e., flood the US with cheap labor, in STEM fields and not just research. Mostly it is just not in the economic interest of any country to be giving away high end education to foreigners.

by mturmon 14y ago

graycat 14y ago

No, I am still correct. That some wealthy foreign students went to Cornell is no doubt recent and not at all what I am talking about. If you will read what I wrote, then you will see that there were students from India in a US Midwestern university. They were not wealthy. And at the time there's no way they could have been paying their way. Net, in US universities, even in undergraduate programs, a major fraction of STEM students were from foreign countries, especially India and Taiwan. In simple terms, they were on scholarships of various kinds. Further, again, yet again, this time just for you, over again, no student in a well known college or university pays the full cost. Rarely do they pay more than 1/3rd. E.g., as I have already posted in this thread, Mike Bloomberg gave $100 million to Johns Hopkins, and a founder QUALCOMM recently gave $133 million to the Cornell technical university being built on Roosevelt Island, and this story is standard all across US colleges and universities. At a research university, expect that a professor will get about $500,000 a year from NSF, NIH, etc. About 60%, 300,000, will go to the university as 'overhead'. The remaining $200,000 will cover the professor's salary, travel, equipment, supplies, etc. And a little will go for graduate students. So, again it's Joe and Mary paying for the university. Net, students don't pay the full cost. Instead the full cost is paid by gifts and taxes, taxes, e.g., for Joe and Mary who are still having a tough time paying for their own children to go to college. Some of the taxes go quite directly to the institutions, e.g., all the state schools in NY, MD, CA, the Big Ten, etc. A lot more money goes from tax payers to the universities via NSF and NIH. You mentioned DARPA: There were old rules that the US DoD could not fund work at universities. Long much DARPA (ARPA) work was so 'confidential' that it could not be done in universities. But clearly, e.g., with some of the DARPA Challenge projects, e.g., at CMU and Stanford, some DARPA funding is making its way into universities. Still I doubt that a major fraction of DARPA money goes to universities. Yes, the situation of the NSF flooding the US with foreign STEM students is more extreme in graduate programs. But the NSF money that goes to students is not really because the research projects need the student's labor! No, the money is because the NSF demands that students be supported because the NSF wants to flood the US labor markets with STEM students with graduate degrees. Maybe you believe that you worked hard for your research assistantship, but, really, the NSF, NIH, etc. mostly just want you to add to the US STEM worker pool to keep down costs to US industry and the US 'military-industrial' complex.

mturmon 14y ago
You're caught up in your story: "Rarely do they pay more than 1/3rd. E.g., as I have already posted in this thread, Mike Bloomberg gave $100 million to Johns Hopkins, and a founder QUALCOMM recently gave $133 million to the Cornell technical university [...] So, again it's Joe and Mary paying for the university." Wait, is it Joe and Mary footing the bill? Or Mike Bloomberg and Irwin Jacobs (the Qualcomm founder you mention)? And I contend that when the NSF, NIH, or other government agencies give contracts to universities that are in part executed by grad students, that's labor bought and paid for. Not a handout (in part) to foreigners.
- graycat 14y ago
  "You're caught up in your story:" I just know what the heck I'm talking about. As I wrote in this thread over and over, it's US citizens, via gifts or taxes, e.g., taxes from Joe and Mary, that is paying for most of any education in a well known US college or university. So, in particular, there's no way a foreigner is paying his/her way; the foreigner is getting an education mostly paid for by US citizens. For the graduate student who gets a stipend for work grading papers or working in a lab for a prof, that's mostly just make work. I've done it as a grad student, and I've hired it as a prof. I will say that when I was teaching calculus at a Big Ten school as a grad student I was earning my keep. The NSF wrote into its grant contracts that students must be supported as a way to get more STEM grad students, not because the NSF wanted those students to contribute to 'research' but because the NSF economists did a calculation to see how to increase STEM graduate degree labor in the US labor market. So, sure stockholders of United Technologies, GE, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, etc. like the idea of the NSF generating more STEM Master's degrees, but Joe and Mary can see that their tax money is not getting their children through college but is getting foreign students through grad school to compete with their children should they manage to get through grad school. So Joe and Mary have a right to feel ripped off. "Not a handout (in part) to foreigners." No, that basically is what is going on, and because the NSF insists so, and so insists because the NSF wants, as I explained, to participate in 'US national manpower management', i.e., flood the US with cheap labor, in STEM fields and not just research. Mostly it is just not in the economic interest of any country to be giving away high end education to foreigners.