CalBears96
Well-known member
Entrepreneurs, sure, but employees? In fact, employees benefit more since theat means fewer competition. Either way, it helps tax payers more than hurts.
Did the UC Admissions make the right decision to drop the SAT Requirement? Should other top public universities like UMichigan, UVA, UNC, & GT follow?
- Thread starter panda
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
The higher tuition paid by international students doesn't increase the ROI for taxpayers one bit, because every dollar invested in education has a multiplier effect that leads to higher productivity for those future workers. If those workers are fleeing to another country, we are investing in that country's future economy. It would be best for taxpayers to pay a little more to educate American students and therefore, to benefit from that multiplier effect on our nation's future productivity.
In other words, the higher investment paid by taxpayers will be repaid many times over IF those workers stay in the country.
Loco_local
Active member
Turning away students with a 4.0 and near perfect SAT in favor of educating foreign students who don’t even stay in the US after graduation doesn’t seem like a good investment for a public university. If they were having problems filling seats I could understand the logic. Admitting a student from China just because his parents have more money than a Chinese American who went to a competitive local high school seems like a poor investment choice for the state of California.
Liar Loan
Well-known member
The ROI tax payers are supposed to get includes a well-educated workforce, which helps grow the economy. The theory behind admitting international students is that they too will stay and help grow our economy, but if they are mostly leaving for their home countries and taking their UC education with them, it doesn't benefit taxpayers.
The higher tuition paid by international students doesn't increase the ROI for taxpayers one bit, because every dollar invested in education has a multiplier effect that leads to higher productivity for those future workers. If those workers are fleeing to another country, we are investing in that country's future economy. It would be best for taxpayers to pay a little more to educate American students and therefore, to benefit from that multiplier effect on our nation's future productivity.
In other words, the higher investment paid by taxpayers will be repaid many times over IF those workers stay in the country.
CalBears96
Well-known member
Engineering students from top UCs would rather stay in Silicon Valley than returning to China and they have no problem obtaining H-1B visas. In fact, I would say that rich Chinese parents would want their kids stay in the US rather than returning to China. That's why FCBs are scooping up homes in Irvine.
But the main point is, public universities are funded by tax payers, and funds are limited. It must come from somewhere, so a compromise is needed, whether it's international students or out of state students.
But the main point is, public universities are funded by tax payers, and funds are limited. It must come from somewhere, so a compromise is needed, whether it's international students or out of state students.