[stupac2]

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?

1) Stanford's status as a non-profit isn't based on who they educate, so this point is moot on its face.

1a) If you want to grant that it should be based on who they educate, bringing in foreign students is good for a whole host of reasons. Here's a rundown of some by economics blogger (and Stanford alum!) Noah Smith: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...-heartland

2) Last I checked Stanford didn't get any federal money to educate students at all, unless you want to count our insane student loan system, and since that system is totally insane on its face that seems unfair.

2a) Even if you do count it, foreign students don't get any.

3) As you say, Stanford mostly gets federal money to do research, and that money is given out because research is a public good that won't get adequately provisioned by the private sector. Like, you know, education.

3a) Even if you want to count training foreign students as part of a grant as "wasting" money, grant money does that sort of thing all the time. If you get a grant and buy some equipment with the money to research the topic, you don't give it back when the grant is done. Plus, as mentioned above, importing smart people is good for growth, if we wanted to be economically efficient we'd make it much easier for foreign students educated in the US to stay.

4) If you think that Stanford is wasting admissions spots on foreigners when there are more natives who could make it, well, I trust admissions enough to think they're doing the best they can there. Plus does anyone here really think that the education at UCLA is that much worse?

5) If you want to end the tax-exemption status for billion-dollar-endowment universities like Stanford because it's asinine, then well sure, that could make sense.

[stupac2]

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?

1) Stanford's status as a non-profit isn't based on who they educate, so this point is moot on its face.

1a) If you want to grant that it should be based on who they educate, bringing in foreign students is good for a whole host of reasons. Here's a rundown of some by economics blogger (and Stanford alum!) Noah Smith: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...-heartland

2) Last I checked Stanford didn't get any federal money to educate students at all, unless you want to count our insane student loan system, and since that system is totally insane on its face that seems unfair.

2a) Even if you do count it, foreign students don't get any.

3) As you say, Stanford mostly gets federal money to do research, and that money is given out because research is a public good that won't get adequately provisioned by the private sector. Like, you know, education.

3a) Even if you want to count training foreign students as part of a grant as "wasting" money, grant money does that sort of thing all the time. If you get a grant and buy some equipment with the money to research the topic, you don't give it back when the grant is done. Plus, as mentioned above, importing smart people is good for growth, if we wanted to be economically efficient we'd make it much easier for foreign students educated in the US to stay.

4) If you think that Stanford is wasting admissions spots on foreigners when there are more natives who could make it, well, I trust admissions enough to think they're doing the best they can there. Plus does anyone here really think that the education at UCLA is that much worse?

5) If you want to end the tax-exemption status for billion-dollar-endowment universities like Stanford because it's asinine, then well sure, that could make sense.