This was not the case elsewhere, most notably in Asian countries.
There is some truth to every stereotype.
[0] - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/latest-updates/no-a...
"In-state tuition: $10,000
Out-of-state tuition: $25,000
International student tuition: $50,000".
going on. Being the world's academy is one of our most overlooked, but most significant industries. Eliminate the moneymakers trying to escape the Gaokao and the cash has to come from somewhere; It certainly isn't going to be this administration.
These top universities already have enough money to operate for a century as non-profits.
They're selling 15-20% of the seats to international rich people.
The appropriate number is probably more like 1.5% - 2.0%, with the rest going to American citizens.
If you get rid of international students then domestic student tuition will increase and/or campus services offered will decline.
Universities do not want to decrease their endowment. They want to find ways to grow it. And another goal is to increase the international reputation of their institutions. Here international students act like a kind of missionary.
They have lost their way. They have been corrupted by bribes heaped upon them by rich international people buying their children advantage.
This is only true for a few elite universities.
In particular, for public universities, the vast majority, including many/most of the top ones, do not have any cap on the amount of incoming students. Whoever meets the bar gets in.
All private and public top schools set admission targets and hit them every year using modeling and adjusting various levers.
There are a tiny number of seats at elite schools and that's how they remain the elite schools.
Source: Local state university in an interview. This came up during the issue of affirmative action. They pointed out (with actual statistics) on how most of them have open admission. The context was that admitting someone via affirmative action was not depriving anyone of a seat.
This was for "regular" undergrad admission. Grad school/business/law/medicine (perhaps pre-med) may be different.
All of these schools have quotas and admission targets and effectively raise/lower the bar to hit their targets.
Just look at the numbers for yourself.
Most of them admit an almost identical number of students each year. The admission rate is what changes.
Depending on the financial model, eliminating spots for international students may in fact have the adverse affect of also eliminating spots for domestic students.
Makes sense you feel that way, the whole game is to make you and others feel that way. You’re not exactly making a mind-blowing comment here.
It's not just international students either, in their demand to Harvard the Trump administration demanded Harvard hire an outside group to survey Harvard staff and STUDENTS for "viewpoint diversity" and if they felt the diversity wasn't what the administration wanted, adjust staff and students to fit their view.
Am I off-base here, or is this exactly what is happening?
The left opened the doors of academic and internet censorship and the right went ‘two can play that game!’ And kicked it wide open.
> The left opened the doors of academic and internet censorship
In my very not-humble opinion, this was almost entirely an astroturfed campaign, which very effectively worked to whip up people into believing that they were being censored.
Whenever it came up in the last few years in online conversations, I would ask "OK, so what are you being censored from saying?" Dozens, maybe a hundred times, of me asking that questions, and it was always crickets in response.
Here's a decent summary of how some of these censorship doors were opened: https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/02/25/covid-censorship-yes-bi...
There are also more vivid and recent examples, like barring universities from divestment from Israel (ie, 0]), which has happened in quite a few 'blue' states. Not to mention sending in armed police (ie, [1]) to break up peaceful anti-genocide protests.
0 - https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-israel-gaza-campus-p...
1 - https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-campus-p...
> If anyone would care to educate me on this, with evidence, I am here for it.
Sure, happy to. I'll focus on the "internet" part. There was mass censorship on the major US social media platforms during COVID in the name of "preventing racist attacks against East-Asians". This is widely documented and admitted.
Yishan Wong, ex-Reddit CEO:
> Example: the "lab leak" theory (a controversial theory that is now probably true; I personally believe so) was "censored" at a certain time in the history of the pandemic
That Meta and Twitter banned accounts for discussion of it is easily verifiable, Wikipedia also banned discussion of it.
In Twitter's case, they even had a CCP figure on their board of directors during this time [1][2].
[1] - https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/3940206
[2] - https://www.jenniferzengblog.com/home/2020/5/25/twitters-new...
So many times I’ve opted to not refute things because I know it’ll be downvoted to oblivion, and because the community at large doesn’t care to change their views in the slightest.
It’s good for tech news.
It's very unfortunate that all I received was downvotes, without a single substantial reply as to what would be particularly incorrect about the observations I made. This does indeed seem to stem from infallibility tribalism: "I identify with group A, so literally anything that can be taken as pointing out a flaw of group A is an attack on me as a person".
At the same time, this isn't a particular hallmark of the left; it's even worse on the right. In any right-dominated space, my comment, if the roles were swapped, would simply have been instantly removed rather than just being downvoted. r/conservative is a very prime example. Twitter is another one, having become much more eager to instantly abide by requests from foreign autocratic regimes to remove/ban accounts that oppose them after the Musk takeover.
I do wonder if you're going to downvote me for this comment, reaching a new "irony level" world record :)
And I'd never downvote something that's not entirely dumb as long as it's written in good faith.
That is the advertising. Meanwhile, the reality is the the US right is banning books in school libraries, telling people what they can do with their bodies to the point of needless deaths, requiring lie detector tests for hiring in the FBI where the question is "do you harbor any bad feelings about the boss?" The Speaker of the House just stated that "separation of church as state is a myth." I could go on and on.
As a lifelong independent, to me the above disconnection from the advertising and reality is the biggest reason that I can plainly see that pledging allegiance or alignment to any political party leads to the death of one's critical thinking abilities in that space.
All the things you listed imo are either extremely marginal or not an issue at all, especially compared to the lefts recent antics. Then again, I was pretty left leaning until I lived in SF, which quickly dissuaded me of it, along with the American left moving pretty far leftward. 15 years ago I guess id be considered somewhat left leaning even still.
Talk to me of specific policies. (I mean this in general, not you specifically.)
Everything else is high school football-style fandom (my team vs. your team) used divide and conquer us.
This setup has been constantly improved, to the point that Intelligent Design could successfully be held up along side the theory of evolution in American media - BEFORE the internet made itself felt.
There is an asymmetric media failure at play, and the idea that “both sides” have the same faults, allows this failure to persist, because it drastically downplays the propaganda machine that operates on the right of the content economy.
This is not an opinion, this is an open secret, as the people within the right wing ecosystem may as well be entirely captured. “Network Propaganda” does a better job of making the case, and should be required reading for most tech people interested in the market place of ideas.
"If only students didn't complain when Milo Yiannopoulos got invited to campus, the Trump administration wouldn't be kicking out (or imprisoning) international students based on their political beliefs, rejecting papers about gay people from conferences at military academies, and imposing quotas for hiring reactionaries." Is that the claim?
I agree with you, but I also think it would be unfortunate to frame this as somehow the responsibility of those who would be suffering the risk to come here to combat this. As much as I'd love for people to come just to stick it to the current government, I honestly think it's probably a better idea for them to prioritize their own safety and security over trying to fight against it. The rest of the world doesn't owe it to us to fix our mess for us.
We both agree that we would have not chosen to visit under the current visa regime, and I assume many others agree with our sentiment.