[TreesAndBirds]

Most interesting info to me......1/3 of graduates are at Stanford on visas.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/18/st...e-divides/

[TreesAndBirds]

Most interesting info to me......1/3 of graduates are at Stanford on visas.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/18/st...e-divides/

[oldalum]

That must be mostly graduate students: only 11% of undergraduates in 2016 were international.
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

[oldalum]

That must be mostly graduate students: only 11% of undergraduates in 2016 were international.
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile

[82lsju]

the article drifts back and forth between all graduates

said Cuéllar, under sweltering skies, to 5,082 graduates and their families at Stanford Stadium.

and undergrads

Stanford undergraduates hail from 33 countries other than the United States. More than 75 countries are represented by master’s and Ph.D. degree holders, said Tessier-Lavigne.

An estimated one-third of Stanford graduates are student visa holders who now must find work at an employer willing to support their continued residence here.

I can believe that a lot of the engineering/computer science grad students need visas to work here

[82lsju]

the article drifts back and forth between all graduates

said Cuéllar, under sweltering skies, to 5,082 graduates and their families at Stanford Stadium.

and undergrads

Stanford undergraduates hail from 33 countries other than the United States. More than 75 countries are represented by master’s and Ph.D. degree holders, said Tessier-Lavigne.

An estimated one-third of Stanford graduates are student visa holders who now must find work at an employer willing to support their continued residence here.

I can believe that a lot of the engineering/computer science grad students need visas to work here

[2006alum]

I am almost certain they meant that statistic to apply to non-professional graduate students, not alums writ large. There's no way that even close 1/3 of the undergraduate, law, business, and medical students are foreigners. I can believe it among the non-professional graduate students, however, given how heavily that population is made up of hard sciences, engineering, and computer science.

[2006alum]

I am almost certain they meant that statistic to apply to non-professional graduate students, not alums writ large. There's no way that even close 1/3 of the undergraduate, law, business, and medical students are foreigners. I can believe it among the non-professional graduate students, however, given how heavily that population is made up of hard sciences, engineering, and computer science.

[akdb8r]

I am almost certain they meant that statistic [roughly one-third of all degrees went to international students] to apply to non-professional graduate students, not alums writ large.

Honestly, I find it conceivable for "roughly one-third" of all of this year's graduates to be international students. Here's why:

The university reports that in 2016, 11% of undergraduates were international students, and 2,011 undergraduate degrees were awarded (11% of 2,011 degrees is 221.21). Also in 2016, 34% of graduate students were international, and 3,370 graduate degrees were awarded (34% of 3,370 degrees is 1,145.8). So, if everything was equal: you have (221.21 + 1,145.8) / (2,011 + 3,370) = 25.4% of all degrees to international students, which is already within striking distance of 33% (just 7.6% away).

Sources:
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/graduate-profile

But of course, not everything is created equal. Some grad programs are only one year (such as the Sloan Fellowship, which is comprised of >75% international students). Other grad students are stuck in Ph.D. programs for a decade (sometimes more). Additionally, some undegraduates complete their course work in three years. Others take five.

There are differences in degree requirements, and also in how quickly students complete those requirements. So, not knowing the particulars of how demographics might behave, I find it at least conceivable that enough international students complete their degrees relatively quicker to make the ceteris paribus number of 25.4% jump up to somewhere around 33%.

There's no way that even close 1/3 of the undergraduate, law, business, and medical students are foreigners.

I'd politely and respectfully point out that the bold part above is rather misinformed. The GSB is actually one of the heaviest demographics of international students. See the GSB's official stats, in which they note that over 40% of all MBAs are international students, and over 75% of students of the prestigious Sloan Fellows are international students: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gs...l-students

Actually, this may again speak in favor of the roughly 33% number. Given that the MSx degree (Sloan Fellowship) and MBA degrees are only one and two years, respectively, whereas the JD degree is three and the MD degree is four, it again lends credibility to the claim that international students are graduating at a faster rate--on average--than non-international students.

tl;dr: based on the official numbers from the university, the claim that "roughly one-third of this year's graduates are international students" seems conceivable.

[akdb8r]

I am almost certain they meant that statistic [roughly one-third of all degrees went to international students] to apply to non-professional graduate students, not alums writ large.

Honestly, I find it conceivable for "roughly one-third" of all of this year's graduates to be international students. Here's why:

The university reports that in 2016, 11% of undergraduates were international students, and 2,011 undergraduate degrees were awarded (11% of 2,011 degrees is 221.21). Also in 2016, 34% of graduate students were international, and 3,370 graduate degrees were awarded (34% of 3,370 degrees is 1,145.8). So, if everything was equal: you have (221.21 + 1,145.8) / (2,011 + 3,370) = 25.4% of all degrees to international students, which is already within striking distance of 33% (just 7.6% away).

Sources:
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/unde...te-profile
http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/graduate-profile

But of course, not everything is created equal. Some grad programs are only one year (such as the Sloan Fellowship, which is comprised of >75% international students). Other grad students are stuck in Ph.D. programs for a decade (sometimes more). Additionally, some undegraduates complete their course work in three years. Others take five.

There are differences in degree requirements, and also in how quickly students complete those requirements. So, not knowing the particulars of how demographics might behave, I find it at least conceivable that enough international students complete their degrees relatively quicker to make the ceteris paribus number of 25.4% jump up to somewhere around 33%.

There's no way that even close 1/3 of the undergraduate, law, business, and medical students are foreigners.

I'd politely and respectfully point out that the bold part above is rather misinformed. The GSB is actually one of the heaviest demographics of international students. See the GSB's official stats, in which they note that over 40% of all MBAs are international students, and over 75% of students of the prestigious Sloan Fellows are international students: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gs...l-students

Actually, this may again speak in favor of the roughly 33% number. Given that the MSx degree (Sloan Fellowship) and MBA degrees are only one and two years, respectively, whereas the JD degree is three and the MD degree is four, it again lends credibility to the claim that international students are graduating at a faster rate--on average--than non-international students.

tl;dr: based on the official numbers from the university, the claim that "roughly one-third of this year's graduates are international students" seems conceivable.

[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.)

[Stymie]

In my experience international undergraduate admitees do tend to be from wealthy families and/or legacies and also tend to have US passports.  Those applicants who have none of these three "attributes" are further disadvantaged in that the Admissions office does not apply the same financial "hardship" standards for non-US citizens.  If you are superqualified smart and diverse and from Poland (for example), your parents have to pay the whole $60K/year whack, regardless of your income.

I don't think that LSJU really wants to get the "international" sub-group much above 10%.  Given that 95+% of the potential application pool is not from the USA, this means that in a global context Stanford is not very diversified at all....

[Stymie]

In my experience international undergraduate admitees do tend to be from wealthy families and/or legacies and also tend to have US passports.  Those applicants who have none of these three "attributes" are further disadvantaged in that the Admissions office does not apply the same financial "hardship" standards for non-US citizens.  If you are superqualified smart and diverse and from Poland (for example), your parents have to pay the whole $60K/year whack, regardless of your income.

I don't think that LSJU really wants to get the "international" sub-group much above 10%.  Given that 95+% of the potential application pool is not from the USA, this means that in a global context Stanford is not very diversified at all....

[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.

[oldalum]

Two (I hope) clarifying comments:

1. The tax-exempt-qualifying part of Stanford's mission is not confined to providing education to individual needy students; the requirements are defined more broadly (and apparently includes the intercollegiate part of DAPER!). As the IRS explains:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profit...tion-501c3

2. 2006alum may have been referring to the tax deduction for contributions to Stanford as a federal subsidy, rather than to direct federal grants to Stanford.

[oldalum]

Two (I hope) clarifying comments:

1. The tax-exempt-qualifying part of Stanford's mission is not confined to providing education to individual needy students; the requirements are defined more broadly (and apparently includes the intercollegiate part of DAPER!). As the IRS explains:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profit...tion-501c3

2. 2006alum may have been referring to the tax deduction for contributions to Stanford as a federal subsidy, rather than to direct federal grants to Stanford.

[oldalum]

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.

Sure it doesn't seem like organizations like Stanford "need" (as defined by as much as others need it) the extra money gained by the tax exemption, but some counterarguments immediately come to mind. First, the practical one of where you draw the line separating rich non-tax-exempt universities from the non-rich tax-exempt ones. Second, as a matter of policy do we really want to penalize the charitable organizations that are the most successful in soliciting donations? Their success in accomplishing their charitable purposes is probably related to their success in soliciting donations.

[oldalum]

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.

Sure it doesn't seem like organizations like Stanford "need" (as defined by as much as others need it) the extra money gained by the tax exemption, but some counterarguments immediately come to mind. First, the practical one of where you draw the line separating rich non-tax-exempt universities from the non-rich tax-exempt ones. Second, as a matter of policy do we really want to penalize the charitable organizations that are the most successful in soliciting donations? Their success in accomplishing their charitable purposes is probably related to their success in soliciting donations.

[Farm93]

Only part that makes me feel "icky" is the idea that these highly valuable global resources are actually encouraged to leave the USA.  We should have an ICE like team working hard to keep these precious resources in the USA after they get a graduate level degree from top universities.

[Farm93]

Only part that makes me feel "icky" is the idea that these highly valuable global resources are actually encouraged to leave the USA.  We should have an ICE like team working hard to keep these precious resources in the USA after they get a graduate level degree from top universities.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=16993.msg194921#msg194921 date=1497971886]
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.

Sure it doesn't seem like organizations like Stanford "need" (as defined by as much as others need it) the extra money gained by the tax exemption, but some counterarguments immediately come to mind. First, the practical one of where you draw the line separating rich non-tax-exempt universities from the non-rich tax-exempt ones. Second, as a matter of policy do we really want to penalize the charitable organizations that are the most successful in soliciting donations? Their success in accomplishing their charitable purposes is probably related to their success in soliciting donations.
[/quote]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think there are probably good arguments for ending all tax-exemptions (for schools, charities, churches, etc), though I haven't looked into it.

But I'm pretty confident that we (as a society) shouldn't reward donations to universities the way we currently do. The university model seems completely broken to me, though I have no idea how to fix it.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=16993.msg194921#msg194921 date=1497971886]
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.

Sure it doesn't seem like organizations like Stanford "need" (as defined by as much as others need it) the extra money gained by the tax exemption, but some counterarguments immediately come to mind. First, the practical one of where you draw the line separating rich non-tax-exempt universities from the non-rich tax-exempt ones. Second, as a matter of policy do we really want to penalize the charitable organizations that are the most successful in soliciting donations? Their success in accomplishing their charitable purposes is probably related to their success in soliciting donations.
[/quote]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think there are probably good arguments for ending all tax-exemptions (for schools, charities, churches, etc), though I haven't looked into it.

But I'm pretty confident that we (as a society) shouldn't reward donations to universities the way we currently do. The university model seems completely broken to me, though I have no idea how to fix it.

[oldalum]

But I'm pretty confident that we (as a society) shouldn't reward donations to universities the way we currently do.

A counter-argument to what I said is that universities produce revenue-generating entities (us) that then make money (in some cases--not mine--lots of money) and donate some of it back to the university, while other types of charities don't have that advantage.

[oldalum]

But I'm pretty confident that we (as a society) shouldn't reward donations to universities the way we currently do.

A counter-argument to what I said is that universities produce revenue-generating entities (us) that then make money (in some cases--not mine--lots of money) and donate some of it back to the university, while other types of charities don't have that advantage.

[Snorlax94]

It doesn't make me feel "icky" at all that Stanford educates international students. The university's founding mission is to “promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."

Presumably, making contributions worldwide in terms of advancing human rights, promoting global peace, reducing hunger, disease and suffering, and making our lifestyle more sustainable and less destructive should reasonably involve educating students not born in America.

It reminds me of how, a century ago, many scholars, inventors, artists, and world leaders (and their children) might have been educated at Oxford.

On the other hand, I do support measures to limit the number of out-of-state and international students at UC's and Cal State schools. I think there is a reasonable assumption by taxpayers that those institutions are supported by California taxpayers in large part to educate Californian students. But even then, I think admitting some out-of-state and international students is beneficial -- if there were some out-of-state and foreign postdoctoral fellows conducting leading research to cure a disease, it would be tragic if UCSF denied
them admission simply because they weren't from here.

[Snorlax94]

It doesn't make me feel "icky" at all that Stanford educates international students. The university's founding mission is to “promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."

Presumably, making contributions worldwide in terms of advancing human rights, promoting global peace, reducing hunger, disease and suffering, and making our lifestyle more sustainable and less destructive should reasonably involve educating students not born in America.

It reminds me of how, a century ago, many scholars, inventors, artists, and world leaders (and their children) might have been educated at Oxford.

On the other hand, I do support measures to limit the number of out-of-state and international students at UC's and Cal State schools. I think there is a reasonable assumption by taxpayers that those institutions are supported by California taxpayers in large part to educate Californian students. But even then, I think admitting some out-of-state and international students is beneficial -- if there were some out-of-state and foreign postdoctoral fellows conducting leading research to cure a disease, it would be tragic if UCSF denied
them admission simply because they weren't from here.

[Papa John]

Snorlax94, re: the UC system and non-CA residents. I think it's important to recognize that, for graduate students, non-CA residents who are US citizens become CA residents after one year. I, for one, am happy to help pay for the education and training of these new "immigrants."

I know that the international-student question is more problematic for some folks, but international students (and out-of-state undergraduates) pay significantly more to attend a campus of the UC system than their CA-resident counterparts. So, yes, they are a revenue stream. How we got to this point and whether or not that is the right way to run a state University are questions with very complex answers.

[Papa John]

Snorlax94, re: the UC system and non-CA residents. I think it's important to recognize that, for graduate students, non-CA residents who are US citizens become CA residents after one year. I, for one, am happy to help pay for the education and training of these new "immigrants."

I know that the international-student question is more problematic for some folks, but international students (and out-of-state undergraduates) pay significantly more to attend a campus of the UC system than their CA-resident counterparts. So, yes, they are a revenue stream. How we got to this point and whether or not that is the right way to run a state University are questions with very complex answers.

[Mick]

It doesn't make me feel "icky" at all that Stanford educates international students. The university's founding mission is to “promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."

Presumably, making contributions worldwide in terms of advancing human rights, promoting global peace, reducing hunger, disease and suffering, and making our lifestyle more sustainable and less destructive should reasonably involve educating students not born in America.

It reminds me of how, a century ago, many scholars, inventors, artists, and world leaders (and their children) might have been educated at Oxford.

On the other hand, I do support measures to limit the number of out-of-state and international students at UC's and ןɐɔ State schools. I think there is a reasonable assumption by taxpayers that those institutions are supported by California taxpayers in large part to educate Californian students. But even then, I think admitting some out-of-state and international students is beneficial -- if there were some out-of-state and foreign postdoctoral fellows conducting leading research to cure a disease, it would be tragic if UCSF denied
them admission simply because they weren't from here.

The University of California places restrictions on out-of-state American citizens.  In other words, there is a cap.  There is no such cap on immigrant students:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/20/cri...icans.html

[Mick]

It doesn't make me feel "icky" at all that Stanford educates international students. The university's founding mission is to “promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."

Presumably, making contributions worldwide in terms of advancing human rights, promoting global peace, reducing hunger, disease and suffering, and making our lifestyle more sustainable and less destructive should reasonably involve educating students not born in America.

It reminds me of how, a century ago, many scholars, inventors, artists, and world leaders (and their children) might have been educated at Oxford.

On the other hand, I do support measures to limit the number of out-of-state and international students at UC's and ןɐɔ State schools. I think there is a reasonable assumption by taxpayers that those institutions are supported by California taxpayers in large part to educate Californian students. But even then, I think admitting some out-of-state and international students is beneficial -- if there were some out-of-state and foreign postdoctoral fellows conducting leading research to cure a disease, it would be tragic if UCSF denied
them admission simply because they weren't from here.

The University of California places restrictions on out-of-state American citizens.  In other words, there is a cap.  There is no such cap on immigrant students:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/20/cri...icans.html

[Papa John]

Your statement is not entirely correct, Mick. The UC system, under a state law that's been around since the early 2000s, considers illegal/undocumented (depending on your political slant--I'm neutral) immigrant students who have graduated from California high schools--and met a few other requirements--to be California residents. So they are considered in-state students for the purpose of admissions, tuition and fees.

It's important to note that the new policy re: out-of-state and international students applies to undergraduates only, which your news link omits.

I'm not making a political statement or saying whether the practice of treating non-citizen residents as CA residents for the purpose of UC admissions and tuition is right or wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that folks understand what we are dealing with.

But this topic might be teetering toward forbidden territory...

[Papa John]

Your statement is not entirely correct, Mick. The UC system, under a state law that's been around since the early 2000s, considers illegal/undocumented (depending on your political slant--I'm neutral) immigrant students who have graduated from California high schools--and met a few other requirements--to be California residents. So they are considered in-state students for the purpose of admissions, tuition and fees.

It's important to note that the new policy re: out-of-state and international students applies to undergraduates only, which your news link omits.

I'm not making a political statement or saying whether the practice of treating non-citizen residents as CA residents for the purpose of UC admissions and tuition is right or wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that folks understand what we are dealing with.

But this topic might be teetering toward forbidden territory...