Sorry to break it to you, but the average American is quite...let's say, average. That's why they're average, lol. Likewise, the average Chinese. That's why their school system filters out tens of millions of schoolkids from higher education and puts them in trade school early. Same goes for India, Europe, etc.
Gifted, driven kids, the kind who will leave their family and everything they've known, to cross an ocean to study in your country, are a scarce resource.
I'm not saying you shouldn't prioritize locals, but if you want competitive, world-class educational system, you should be open to foreign students and faculty helping to keep your system competitive. It's the same worldwide, whether it's in Singapore's NUS, or Oxford, or Saudi Arabia's KAUST.
There's so few seats at these schools we could fill them with Americans and not notice a difference is my belief. We're talking about single digit acceptance rates where it's probably hard to distinguish students who apply at all.
Also I feel like it's not a good assumption that talented international students that come to top tier universities also have the same western vision of meritocracy and sharing their achievements with the globe.
because the infrastructure in their home countries likely don't exist. some people are just that much smarter and need such an environment.
Or, there's risk to being in their home country where academic freedom might not really be a thing.
it's like why if you show serious promise in soccer at a young age, you go to Europe as soon as you can - you will be better developed there in a more mature environment as opposed to, say, the USA where you can only get decent coaching in a few major cities, and even then the gulf between the coaching at a top Spanish or English club versus an American one is huge. Or if you show promise in tennis at a young age, you get your ass to Florida as soon as you are able to.
The path of least resistance is obviously to go where the infrastructure is.
Also, smarts needed to bootstrap modern infrastructure from scratch with limited resources are different than smarts needed to design a popular app, for example.
>Typically smart people arent limited to specific areas of being smart. That's kind of the definition of being smart is figuring things out.
Having worked with everyone over the course of my life from PhDs to construction workers, I'm going to have to hard disagree on this one. Just because someone is gifted in one area, does not mean their intelligence or domain expertise applies everywhere. Domain expertise is a real thing.
It's about maximizing your potential, and being in the best environment to do so. Building up that capacity might sound nice in theory, but in practice, you go where you can to get the best results possible.
Some of them actually do that. Like when the US expelled Qian Xuesen, the founder of the Jet Propulsion Lab and he went back and built China's ballistic missile and space program. So, yep. It's happened and will continue to happen to different degrees.
I agree with you. We don't even have to imagine: the UK and US were planning preemptive nuclear strikes against the entire Soviet Union before they tested their first nuke.
Operation Dropshot and Unthinkable called for hundreds of nukes and conventional bombs to be dropped on Soviet cities to, "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire."
All in all, I don't even have a dog in the fight, but people like Qian Xuesen won't become retarded if they're expelled from the US. If I remember correctly, something like a third of all top-tier AI researchers are Chinese. If you count all those with an immigration background, they'll be close to 50-70%. They will simply create companies and products that compete and take market share from American companies.
Are Americans - the country that votes out presidents for rising gas prices - willing to make do with a lower standard of living? Because that'd what you'll get when some the world's best innovators are no longer based in your country.
> They will simply create companies and products that compete and take market share from American companies.
Trade and innovation benefits all of mankind. A rising tide lifts all ships. Having multiple countries becoming successful instead of the US simply monopolizing talent would benefit the world.
> Glad Qian Xuesen helped China improve their missile innovation.
Nuclear Deterrence should be spread far and wide so no one bad actor can get into power and bully others.
Being okay is a lot different from maintaining academic, innovative, and cultural dominance which provides a standard of living many have grown used to.
I don't think that website implies what you're thinking. The only significant thing that happened in 1971 is that Nixon suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold, giving the US leeway to run unlimited deficits, paying for imports with paper.
Now, America wants to reduce its debt and curb industrial powers like the EU, Japan, China, etc. but it doesn't want to give up its exorbitant privilege that got it into the debt whole in the first place.
No, your point doesn't stand at all. It's completely baseless. You took a detailed resource referencing America's departure from a gold standard and you're twisting it to support your pet immigration policy.
Now, if you want to limit non-European immigration, it's a personal opinion and you have a right to it, but you can't make a blanket statement that, "everything worked better," or misinterpret data to say what you want.
Don't pretend you're being data-driven when you've made up your mind and now you're trying to torture the data into saying what you want.
What metrics are you measuring by?
So, while it seemed like you were trying to argue logically, it appears your argument is: I don't like non-Europeans. And you're trying to massage the data into showing your opinion is data-driven because it can't stand on its own merit.
We had 'Asian road chaos' every fall where the rich ones would show up with their new Bugattis (edit: Maseratis) having never learned how to drive the thing and much less on the open American roads where you can really let the accelerator loose. They would cause endless crashes.
One or two of poor ones would end up committing suicide in the spring when they flunked out and had spent their entire little farming family's fortune back in some austere rice farming village.
It was quite the sight to see. I want to say they were fairly normal in intelligence, relatively, but the set of incentives for them to perform were wildly different.
I was being generous when I wrote the comment. Several of the internationals left me baffled about how they got there. The liberal HN audience here clearly has an axe to grind.
That still doesn't mean your experiences generalise in any useful way, and using phrases like 'liberal HN audience' only serves to highlight your own biases.
But they pay several multiples of money more to study than the average US citizen, take on no debt, and most of the time are studying for advanced technical degrees.
Most Americans are not.
If we want to have top-tier universities, and produce graduates capable of innovating and taking big risk, we need to have universities who are strong in STEM.
If we want to have universities who are strong in STEM, we need to fill up those seats because otherwise without students, there are no classes.
The average US citizen voted in Trump, so no. You can't listen to his UN speech and go "that's the man to rule my country" if you're not seriously mentally impaired.
What's your point? That education only belongs to the "talented"? Talented in what way? What good does it do to society that the "non-talented" are not educated?
