That only stopped being (mostly—see the Chinese Exclusion Act) our actual policy in what, the 1950s? And after that, much to the relief of the agriculture industry that sharply opposed the change, we de facto barely enforced the new policy.
We've been slipping into rent seeking at least since the eighties though - so the share that actual researchers get has been shrinking while the culture has become much more hostile to immigration. It is a situation built on momentum though - so while the tools supporting it have been torn down we still do have a lot of people who moved here with the hope of leveraging it.
Yes, this is still true, and why immigration to America maintained its previous momentum. It was often easier to get a student visa than a different immigration visa, so for the past 30 years or so that has been the primary route, and in turn has raised the prestige of American universities.
However, if you look at the American-born population, their students are not impressive. Quite the opposite, for how much funding their education gets. And—by federal interest—only ~10% of the undergraduate student body can be foreigners. Professors at American universities routinely complain about their students' low standards. Things are not the same as they were ten years ago, let alone thirty or fifty years ago.
I think international sentiment has not shifted to the point that this is common knowledge—that if people want to go international, they better attend a school in China or Switzerland—but it would have happened in a few years with or without Trump, and the decline would be as apparent as the primary and secondary school decline has been.
> their universities were following in the COVID/post-COVID era
I haven't heard of that. Where can I find more about it, if you remember?
I think it is difficult to find data on this, as there are not many international assessments at the university level. You can look at research output, but research is kind of bullshit these days, and even if it weren't, it would be skewed by the older generations. You can look at international competitions, but does America do poorly in the ICPC because they're worse, or because they don't care? Brigham Young University (a small-fry religious school in Utah, USA) got a bronze medal a decade ago, significantly better than their other universities. If you investigate a little further, you'll find this university did decent at the Putnam around the same time, so they probably just had a few students who really tried hard. It's known that MIT dominates the Putnam, but that is now literally a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know many math people who chose MIT above other schools because it is the place Putnam winners go.
One thing you can look at is the graduate body composition. At elite universities, around 40% of graduate students are foreigners (compared to 30% 50 years ago). Across all universities, nearly half of PhDs are awarded to foreigners. However, this does not really prove American undergraduate students are falling behind, and it mildly supports the case that American universities maintain their prestige. I actually believe American universities do still maintain their prestige, just that they are more of a paper tiger than Americans like to believe. Almost like MIT with the Putnam, everyone goes to America because everyone goes to America.
Well, that plus a ton of investor money floating around. The dollar hegemony is still going strong, and while the invasion of Venezuela shows it might be a little weaker than the average American hopes, they're not going to let it go away without a fight.
"Chinese Universities Surge in Global Rankings as U.S. Schools Slip"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking...
They say Chinese elite universities are surpassing American ones in research and funding, and that 20% fewer international students enrolled in American universities in 2025. Though, of course, that was right after Trump took away Harvard student visas.
I think you are confusing the current climate of immigration enforcement and reform with being anti-immigration. The US will continue to draw top talent because the US is where the bulk of the opportunities are and will be for at least the next 5 years.
It’s been widely discussed that the immigration system has been abused, especially by the tech industry. This reform started under Obama. The current outcry is a reaction to the most recent federal election. Reform does not mean the US is anti-immigrant. It may mean lower levels of immigration that’s more selective for talent.
That's not much of a flex. The people who are worried about China taking the lead are looking at velocity and acceleration, not position.
The metric isn’t how much fruit you have now, but how well you’re preparing the soil and planting the seeds for the next generation.
If this was true, Repubs would be handing out green cards at graduation ceremonies, at least for STEM fields. Instead, they are rolling out more pay to play schemes.
4) We've destroyed the public scientific job sector.
If your field of science isn't related to something the US military is interested in, you better have a degree in something directly related to pharmaceuticals.
A lot of the US's leadership in science was based purely on the momentum it gained from the progressive era and the cheap education we used to have. Ever since roughly Reagan, it's been slowly eroded to today's sorry state.
When I went to school, the promise was "get a degree in anything, it'll pay for itself". Now, gen z is actively choosing to avoid college because the ROI is horrendous.
What has changed is primarily 2 things:
1) People in positions of authority are now openly anti-progress in an effort to pacify entrenched interests.
2) These same people are also openly anti-immigrant. In the past, a lot of science in the USA has been imported from other countries by way of immigration.
Less science equals less/inferior technology which equals smaller economy and weaker USA.