Some EU countries offer scholarships to attract good foreign undergrads and grad students to their universities. The whole point is that they stay afterwards, and they try really hard to keep them. It's been proven to be quite economically profitable, see e.g. [1]. I've never understood what's the point of attracting good students if you don't want to keep them later on, unless you have overcapacity and sell education services. But that would not make sense for top universities where there is a fierce competition for spots.
[1] https://www.dtu.dk/english/newsarchive/2022/11/udenlandske-s...
Seems like you understand the point after all :)
US tertiary education is the perfect export good: Like other intellectual property, it's almost infinitely fungible, and parents from all over the world will part with staggering amounts of money for it.
The quality is definitely high, but the markup compared to other countries' universities is something else.
US schools attract international students because most will pay full tuition, subsidizing costs for local students.
No random nation based limits like the US somehow has.
Exporting knowledge, culture and contacts
Another reason would be to generate goodwill and potential future business relations for your country. Can be pretty valuable for your export-oriented businesses.
> Obama thought the idea was intriguing and mentioned it multiple times to his advisors. It never went anywhere though.
This sounds like OPT on an F-1 visa. If the OPT employer likes you, then they sponsor your H-1B application, and with your masters+ degree from an American institution, you get two shots in the lottery. (And if there's a recession, the caps might not get hit anyway). Kind of a drag because you'll probably need to get a masters degree, but it'll help your immigration file later if you want to try for permanent residency, or if you give up and pick a new host country.
Anyhow consider me demoralized, i cant picture anything the US could do in the next decade to turn the ship around from the fuck-it-all perestroika we've adopted as federal policy. (Speaking of turning the ship around, I'm looking forward to my 8 day east bound crossing from NYC to Southampton at the end of the month. The ship is capable of doing it in 5 days but the demand isn't there to pay the extra cost to run the turbines at full steam.)
If you’re lucky enough to be able to fuck off for 42 days you might also be interested in ocean crossings by sail, here’s the offering ive considered, the Europa: https://www.barkeuropa.com/en/our-voyages
Thanks for the information!
And I might have time to fuck off, I'm burnt out of my job and thinking of quitting in summer time.
Not true. America was successful regardless of immigration. For example, for much of the 20th century, the US banned immigration from most of the world. Look up the history of US immigration bans. It's quite enlightening
> It is due to America being a nation of immigrants that we can do this.
America is not and never has been a nation of immigrants. At no time in US history has immigrants represented anywhere close to the majority of the US population. America was always a nation of native born americans. Not immigrants.
> Due to its history the United States can be described as an immigration country.
Being a nation of immigrants does not mean the majority of the population are migrants at any given point in time. You need to consider how many waves of migration have arrived in the USA one after another, not all at once.
Obama thought the idea was intriguing and mentioned it multiple times to his advisors. It never went anywhere though.
Brain draining the rest of the world is one of the main reasons for America’s success. It is due to America being a nation of immigrants that we can do this.