[2006alum]

Also in 2016, 34% of graduate students were international

It seems to me that this supports my larger point without any further analysis needed - that about 1/3 of graduate students are international, not one-third of all students. However, I also wonder what it means to be "international." The GSB might say 40% of their students have a non-U.S. passport, but that doesn't mean they aren't also American citizens. I know several such dual citizenship holders who are GSB alums, and so I wonder what the rate of people who actually need a visa to work in the U.S. is. I would imagine, at least for the GSB, it's much lower than 40%.

More broadly, does anyone start to feel a tad icky about Stanford's tax-exempt status at it serves a larger and larger percentage of non-Americans? Sure, Stanford's research outputs will largely continue to benefit the United States, but at the point at which large chunks of its students are foreigners, why is the U.S. subsidizing their education at the expense of tax revenue that could support American students? At least when I was at Stanford, the vast majority of international undergraduates were from exceedingly wealthy families, so it's hard to understand what was charitable about Stanford's mission to educate foreign elite's kids in economics and then send them off to Goldman Sachs in London to go be a banker. (Literally describes a friend of mine.)

[2006alum]

Also in 2016, 34% of graduate students were international

It seems to me that this supports my larger point without any further analysis needed - that about 1/3 of graduate students are international, not one-third of all students. However, I also wonder what it means to be "international." The GSB might say 40% of their students have a non-U.S. passport, but that doesn't mean they aren't also American citizens. I know several such dual citizenship holders who are GSB alums, and so I wonder what the rate of people who actually need a visa to work in the U.S. is. I would imagine, at least for the GSB, it's much lower than 40%.

More broadly, does anyone start to feel a tad icky about Stanford's tax-exempt status at it serves a larger and larger percentage of non-Americans? Sure, Stanford's research outputs will largely continue to benefit the United States, but at the point at which large chunks of its students are foreigners, why is the U.S. subsidizing their education at the expense of tax revenue that could support American students? At least when I was at Stanford, the vast majority of international undergraduates were from exceedingly wealthy families, so it's hard to understand what was charitable about Stanford's mission to educate foreign elite's kids in economics and then send them off to Goldman Sachs in London to go be a banker. (Literally describes a friend of mine.)