←back to thread

219 points thisisit | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ryanianian ◴[] No.16126766[source]
It is understandable why somebody would want to return to their home-country. The "Bamboo Ceiling" the article discusses is incredibly concerning. It's America's loss for sure.

I'm curious (1) how much of these people's education or experience was subsidized by the American economy and (2) how common the same situation is in China (i.e. US expats training up in China and taking that expertise back to the US).

If (1) and (2) aren't aligned, it could be one of the factors contributing to the growing sense that we pour a bunch of money into higher-ed without seeing much return.

I don't mean this from a US nationalist or political perspective - I'm merely speculating on the economics. Are the incentives for coming to the country aligned for both the person and the country? Many companies will pay for employees to go to grad-school but demand repayment if the employee isn't still with the company N years later. Would such a system for college/work visas make any sense to help keep talent?

replies(11): >>16126829 #>>16126854 #>>16126862 #>>16126879 #>>16126882 #>>16127000 #>>16127053 #>>16127062 #>>16127202 #>>16127594 #>>16128091 #
mraison ◴[] No.16127053[source]
I'm curious what makes you worry about (1). To me it seems like the exact opposite (foreign students pay the full tuition without any subsidy from the US, and are a critical source of revenue for many American universities)

Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-enrollme...

replies(1): >>16127197 #
ryanianian ◴[] No.16127197[source]
I had a number of Chinese-national friends at university (a big public university) who received significant scholarships from the school.

(It could be it was a subsidy-exchange between the university and a chinese institution but I didn't get that impression. It could have been a private party as well. In any case it was definitely a scholarship by a US institution - not sure if public or private.)

These friends were brilliant and couldn't have afforded to attend without it. However: last I heard, they have all since moved back to China and are doing quite well for themselves.

This is objectively good news for these people, but that scholarship money was effectively just given to China. There are ripple benefits that aren't so tangible (added diversity, the chance that they could have stayed, the impact they had while here, etc).

Overall it seems "fair" that scholarship money should be converted to a loan if the education isn't used long-term in the same economy as the scholarship.

replies(3): >>16127418 #>>16127738 #>>16133412 #
badpun ◴[] No.16127738[source]
Traditionally, the US have routinely awared stipends and scholarships to foreign students who had a potential to be somebody 10-20 years down the road (influencing politician, diplomat, journalist, scholar etc.). The idea was that these people would be immersed in the American view of the world and would then propagate it in their home country.
replies(2): >>16127807 #>>16136817 #
1. ryanianian ◴[] No.16127807[source]
Right - the assumption is that in the long run the scholarship will be a net-positive to the US economy. This article kinda says that this assumption isn't valid (or at least is decreasingly valid).