> I don't think the US is better off with foreign nationals that seek education in the US...
I know a guy whose wife was once a bank teller, near a major (public) US research university. By his telling, arriving Chinese (mainland) college students typically opened their bank accounts with mid-6-figure deposits.
Perhaps you should talk to someone in the tourism or hospitality industry, about your great new idea of turning away pay-top-dollar customers en mass?
(And maybe also talk to an average research staffer doing NSF-funded research, about just how wretched the pay, hours, and job security are. Sunk Cost fallacies and social status aside, many of those folks would really be better off mowing lawns and flipping burgers.)
They can keep their tourism money, education isn't tourism nor is it banking. People gain critical skills that can make or break a nation's economy, industries and national security advantage. Since when is the US reliant on Chinese ir any other tourism at such a high cost! If they have so much money, paying private schools is well within their reach and maybe they should be helping fund research with their high tuition instead of private schools getting a grant?
This isn’t tourism, this is education. It is about training for skills that are presumably valuable for the country to have. Since there are also a limited number of spots and the tax payers foot the bill we should be more concerned that the people who get the spots are going to be in it for the long haul. Mercenaries have always been a questionable investment.
Of course the NSF should pay more, but saying “people don’t want these jobs” is more of a cheapskate slogan to justify exploitation.
These spots aren’t generally subsidized for foreign students. Higher education in the US has many types of price discrimination and subsidies so it’s a complex topic but foreign students will generally be charged a premium.
Also rather than a fixed number of slots most schools grow and shrink based on demand. That’s why so many more people can get educated vs 40 or even 20 years ago. There’s generally a huge surplus of people willing to teach outside of a few niche areas.
The "number of slots" at a university is limited in the exact same way as the number of tables at a fancy restaurant and the number of rooms at a nice hotel. The "limited" is a business model / marketing ploy - to maintain the air of exclusivity, and maximize revenue.
And for your "taxpayers foot the bill"? I live near the University of Michigan. Total "public university" state funding, per student, is maybe $7,000 per year. Vs. out-of-state undergraduate students are charged a ~$40,000 per year premium, over in-state tuition rates. (BTW, U of M total enrollment has increased ~50% in the past 30 years. Building more classrooms and hiring more staff is easy stuff, from a U-M Executive Suite PoV.)
My NSF point was not that NSF should pay more. It was that your "foreign nationals...NSF funded programs" argument is not logical. If we're paying crap wages to "best and brightest" foreign nationals, while American drop-outs do better flipping burgers...that sure doesn't sound like "them" taking advantage of "us". Quite the opposite.
I know a guy whose wife was once a bank teller, near a major (public) US research university. By his telling, arriving Chinese (mainland) college students typically opened their bank accounts with mid-6-figure deposits.
Perhaps you should talk to someone in the tourism or hospitality industry, about your great new idea of turning away pay-top-dollar customers en mass?
(And maybe also talk to an average research staffer doing NSF-funded research, about just how wretched the pay, hours, and job security are. Sunk Cost fallacies and social status aside, many of those folks would really be better off mowing lawns and flipping burgers.)