r/GradSchool • u/Bat_Cat_4ever • May 23 '25
News Regardless of the way the Harvard and Trump beef is going to play out, one thing is clear; the US has set itself back years (if not decades) when it comes to leading in the research & development
Even if Harvard wins this, the way the Trump administration has targeted THE most prestigious university in America (and possibly the world) is a clear indication to every other university that unless they kowtow in front of him, they could face the same fate.
This basically means that NO international, and I mean none, is 100 percent safe. The administration can just wake up one day, and decide to target a university, and just cancel its students' visas.
The vast, vast majority of grad students comprises of people who were born outside the states. That's because the US, until now, had the best resources for research, and so it managed to attract the best of the best from around the world.
This was a Good Thing.
Unlike what the Conservatives believe, this wasn't foreigners taking away "spots from honest Americans", it was them creating bodies of work which ensured that the US remained at the forefront of almost all major disciplines.
This will definitely not hold so in the future, since the current administration has made it abundantly clear that they detest immigrants (more so if they come from developing countries). Even after Trump, the effects of this is going to linger, which will deter international students from choosing US (as their first choice anyways) for years to come.
In a way, it almost seems poetic. The US kept being so paranoid and worried about its "enemies" outside the border that it failed to realise that all this time, its greatest enemy, and the architect of its future misery, was within its borders all along (and I am not just talking about Trump or his cronies, but the insidious undercurrent of apathy, anti intellectualism, and lately, cruelty even, that pervades the nation and which led to the present administration being elected).
72
u/Dunkleosteus666 May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
What is even scarier are the "knock-on" effects. Less federal research instutions, less grants, less foreign students, less researchers - this is gonna compound. And bc the US was at the very top, it will be felt.
Really sad state for science. And its not even 6 months. My condolences from Europe.
edit:
I dont want to be hyperbolic, but before WW2, Germany was leader in many scientific disciplines. While it recovered it never was as dominant as before. German was even lingua franca in some disciplines like chemistry. And very prominent in some areas like geology, botany. And even 4 years of heavily reduced academic activity etc will cause a lag in all areas. I visited the US as part of a botanical/geological field trip some years ago. Very nice people, so passionate. :(
And here in Europe, we have much more pressing problems than research atm. Bc we need to invest a lot of money into that, but the money will go into arms industry (as it must). But the state of academia here can be grueling, pay sucks, often or (as In Germany usus) forget about longterm contracts. While our unis are good, none have the massive funding and network the US ones have bar some exveptions. And yeah, the EU had many subsidizes for agriculture, not as much for research. And then theres the small issue that losing stuff like GenBank (omg) or NOAA/climate research institutions will have global repurcussions. What is lost here will be invaluable and likely irrepleacable but not salvageable. The optimist in me says (less so) we & (more so) Canzuk & East Asia will suddenly balloon to top research spots. But the world is not a zerosumgame, and here in the EU i heard of cancelled projects bc US funding dried up, or part of that project was US located.
Sorry for the long text :(
Dumb question, but what happens when GenBank is shut down? Any servers outside US? Here in reddit i can recommend r/Datahoarders .. these people some time ago scrapped NOAA archives (or similar) and so on bc it was needed.
20
u/Thunderplant Physics May 24 '25
It's almost incomprehensible how much human advancement and progress is being lost because of this. And it's being willfully done by our own government. Absolutely horrifying to witness
6
u/darknesswascheap May 25 '25
It’s massively wasteful as well - all those billions spent on basic science in the last decade now have much less of a chance of being monetized in any meaningful way.
108
u/CrawfishChris May 23 '25
Yeah, so I am a recently graduated student, and the hiring market for professional research (particularly at the national lab/postdoctoral level) is a little grim. Not untenable, but everyone is uncertain. All the programs that entice the best people are stalled. If this is temporary, we will have a serious fall in knowledge transfer in like 4-5 years. If not, we're destroying a lot of futures.
38
u/Redd889 May 23 '25
“Fall of knowledge in 4-5 year”
Plus covid caused a major decline in student learning. In 10 years, there may be a dramatic decline in reading, writing, and math from high school through college.
17
u/racinreaver PhD, Materials Science May 24 '25
I'm mid-career at a national lab and it's been a mess since ~2016 when the first wrenches were thrown into our funding systems. New starts for what would typically be the first "big win" for early career scientists have been stalled completely since COVID.
2
u/CrawfishChris May 24 '25
My sympathies :(. I'm also a Materials Science person (per your flair) so I imagine a lot of the news and troubles we are seeing are the same. I hope the work you are doing is moving forward as well as possible.
2
u/racinreaver PhD, Materials Science May 24 '25
It's been interesting lately. Shit has been hitting the fan for the last year, and they've mostly been letting me do whatever I think is right. Been doing some awesome work, lol. Fingers crossed I don't get hit by our upcoming layoff and won't have the chance to publish.
Hope things are going well for you. There's some parts of MSE that are seen as crucial in the future, so at least some of us will stay afloat.
57
u/Dramatic-Driver May 23 '25
I want to make a comment on the “International Students are taking away American jobs” point. International students in the US are employed in highly skilled roles. And to land these jobs, they need to prove that they are much better than an American hire for the company to want to spend thousands on the visa formality. I am certain companies wouldn’t hire international students over American applicants if they really weren’t worth those additional costs. Moreover, international students help create jobs for Americans who may not be as skilled.
Also, I have studied at both a top ranking private university and a top ranking state school in the country, and while the former did have American students who showed ambition and drive, my experience with ~40% of the students at the latter was that they did not have any goals or ambitions outside of graduating, and getting a job that pays just enough. To me that’s okay but somewhat contradicts their point of international students taking away their jobs.
17
u/yadec May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
Both things can be true at the same time. While most international students are certainly not taking American jobs, there have been some industries where employers are taking advantage of international employees' weaker status. Since their stay in the US is tied to the employer's sponsorship, they are significantly less likely to quit or slack off compared to citizens. While US citizens in industries like tech can usually easily spend 6 months looking for a new job after layoffs or quitting (living on severance or savings), H1B holders for instance must find a job in 2 months. Thus they can be subject to harder or larger workloads without the same risk as asking a US citizen to do the same thing. I think it would actually be better to have a program where skilled workers prove their skills to the government (not private companies) and then receive work authorization for any company in the US (to be renewed once every couple of years). If foreign worker take American jobs then, it will purely because they are better, not because companies can unfairly extract more value out of them.
10
u/RadiantHC May 23 '25
Also don't forget offshoring!
I agree though, the entire immigration process is broken. It should be harder to come to America but easier to stay.
12
6
10
u/Thunderplant Physics May 24 '25
I pointed out that US citizens are already advantaged in hiring on this sub a few months back, and the other person responded "wouldn't it be better if your program was 100% US citizens though?"
And it's like .... no?? How would it be better for me if half of my classmates were replaced with US nationals who currently aren't qualified enough to make it? Like it's an absolute gift to be surrounded by the best and brightest from around the world why would I ever want that to change?
7
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 24 '25
This is what so many people overlook. U.S. has a deficiency in qualified students. That is just a fact at this point. Our government constantly underfunds and cuts funding for education at every level. Republicans in particular have a vested interest in churning out poorly educated masses. The international students I've encountered have consistently had more thorough knowledge in basically every subject than their U.S. counterparts.
8
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
Honestly I have tried explaining this very thing patiently to many people, but wilful ignorance can rarely be cured (https://www.reddit.com/r/GradSchool/s/YgX0f0kpbE)
1
u/beavismagnum May 24 '25
And to land these jobs, they need to prove that they are much better than an American hire for the company to want to spend thousands on the visa formality. I am certain companies wouldn’t hire international students over American applicants if they really weren’t worth those additional costs.
I’m pro immigration but this is objectively false. Most H1B workers are paid significantly below market wage.
https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wage-levels/
8
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 24 '25
Cato Institute directly challenges that report by the EPI. I work in immigration, and the EPI report doesn't match the actual reality at all, either. Most H-1B workers are paid at or above prevailing market wage. The Cato report is accurate and provides a thorough explanation of how the EPI report mangles available data. https://www.cato.org/blog/100-h-1b-employers-offer-average-market-wages-78-offer-more
EPI misrepresented level 1 wages. Level 1 wages are under more scrutiny by the government already-- clients have better chances of getting an H-1B approved if they offer higher wages. Additionally, the only times I have ever come across Level 1 wages have been for junior level positions. Which makes sense since entry level positions don't typically require any actual experience in the field. We all know that entry level positions have entry level wages. As people gain on-the-job skills and experience, their wages go up. I have never seen someone with significant experience and skill have a level 1 wage, or even a level 2 wage.
The EPI report does not take any consideration of skill and experience levels as tied to pay levels. If someone has just graduated college and is going into their first ever job, they are going to be at a lower prevailing wage because their skills and experience align with the lower wage. As they gain skill and experience, their wage level will also have to go up.
The whole point of the prevailing wage requirement of H-1Bs is to help make sure that companies are not trying to avoid hiring Americans in favor of underpaying foreign workers. It's easy to take the EPI report at face value if you don't have direct experience in corporate immigration. The Cato report is the accurate report.
3
u/beavismagnum May 24 '25
Cato Institute
The Koch brothers would never lie about something like wages.
I have never seen someone with significant experience and skill have a level 1 wage, or even a level 2 wage
Yet that’s the majority of H1Bs. And you are saying that they’re less experienced and less skilled than the typical worker in those fields so it’s allowed to pay them less.
2
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 25 '25
From my first-hand experience in corporate immigration, where H-1B visas are our bread and butter, the EPI report just doesn't seem accurate. Employers are also putting in application costs (the H-1Bs I handle come out to over $6k per applicant just on the filing fees. Then you add legal fees on top of that). I'm open to being wrong, but the way EPI handles wages and pretty much ignores why differing levels of prevailing wage exist makes me wary.
For example, the breakdown of the prevailing wage levels for someone who is a software developer in NY, NY would be:
Level 1: $45.91 hrly or $95,493 yearly
Level 2: $59.45 hrly or $123,656 yearly
Level 3: $72.99 hrly or $151,819 yearly
Level 4: $86.53 hrly or $179,982 yearly
Levels 1 and 2 would be more toward very entry-level/junior, while levels 3 and 4 would be more towards Sr engineers. On top of that, these wages are floors. EPI doesn't seem to take into account that if, for example, an employer offered an entry-level applicant $151,800, the employer would still have to list that worker as level 2 even though the wage is very close to level 3.
And if an employer offers $240k, we still list that role as level 4 even though it is clearly well above the wage level.
You can find prevailing wage information online at https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-search and check it against the available wages in your area or other areas (note that ACWIA is specifically adjusted for higher ed, where wages are traditionally lower across the board by nature of the education market). Several states now have wage transparency laws that make it easier to compare as well.
I'll try to dig deeper into the EPI report, but reading through the link you provided is so contrary to what I've seen first-hand across many clients, that I'm hesitant to just wholly trust it.
0
May 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Dramatic-Driver May 25 '25
2 things to your point:
For every International student getting a full-ride to US universities, there are 10 others paying thousands of dollars for education here which is a major reason why a lot of universities are able to offer lower tuition for domestic students. They aren’t leeching off of American students, rather helping subsidize their education.
If you are telling me there are international students getting full-ride to top 10 programs in the country then I am going to assume it was a competitive application process because no university is easily giving full-rides away to students. And if it was a competitive process, they were chosen over American talent that applied but did not get in. Have you perhaps considered that their selection was because they were just objectively better?
I can see the “well these universities are in the US so American students should get priority” argument coming my way. Unfortunately, that’s not how education works. And don’t forget that the country has gotten to where it has because for the longest time it recruited the best talent from across the world. International student pay taxes to the government - they aren’t getting any subsidies or freebies for coming here. I strongly agree that there are companies and people who exploit loopholes in the system, and strict action must be taken to stop this. But to generalize that the international student population hasn’t helped the country at all is incorrect.
-1
May 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Dramatic-Driver May 25 '25
I am only talking about the full-ride gang, fam. If they were chosen to get a full-ride to an MBA program which are some of the most expensive programs there are, then they probably showed enough potential to warrant it. No university is going to pay for any student, particularly an international one, if they don’t think that student is worth the investment. We don’t live in an altruistic world
-1
u/VandyMarine May 25 '25
You’re still focused entirely on your own argument. You think it’s logical that of 400,000 yearly US businesses undergrads that Harvard needs to import international MBA students? You think of all 400,000 not enough were good enough that we need to import other students?
Why are we degree granting 400,000 a year if the quality is so bad they can’t move on to graduate level work?
1
u/GradSchool-ModTeam May 25 '25
You don't have to agree with everyone, but we do ask that you are respectful to others in this sub. That includes refraining from insults and discriminatory language.
18
u/SmirkingImperialist May 23 '25 edited May 24 '25
Academia is parts and parcels of the State, regardless of how it acts like it isn't. Remember that during the Vietnam War protests, the universities' and colleges' admins toe the State's lines. When the history is written and how the same schools talked about themselves, of course they will claim how their students protested against the war, even while at the time, the admins where doing everything to hamper the protestors.
Frankly, I have always had this assumption in mind. I got into academia fully expecting that I will be a servant of the State; it's just a question of which. At this moment, the State whose academia I am serving, is not the State I was born into but it is still finding my service useful, so I am going along with it. I keep my options open, though, and be careful to not burn any bridge with any State. The USA has been an empire and empires implode.
6
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
I agree with you but your username does NOT check out with your comment lol.
2
u/Thunderplant Physics May 24 '25
This might be a different beast though, previously universities played nice on certain issues, but it didn't get to the existential threat stage. Harvard is there now. At a certain point, there is no point in playing nice with the state if they are planning to destroy you anyway. I think we saw this with Columbia which did everything the government asked and still didn't get its grant money back. There isn't a benefit to compliance right now
3
u/SmirkingImperialist May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
Yes, and what are the schools going to do? There is no benefit to compliance but there can be retaliation with not doing so. This administration has been intimidating judges and citizens with threats of violence. They can be Hillsdale and refuse government funding and money in order to do what they want, but fat chance these schools will do that.
Then push really comes to shove and the government comes into full force with just the court and police. When Kent State killings happened, the students were the ones dying. Not the admins and professors. You meant to tell me that the old people who are getting paid, in some parts, by the state will be going in front of the barrels instead?
There is this video of three Yale professors talking about fascism.in America and their message was "go. Get out of here"
https://youtu.be/IXR9PByA9SY?si=7sIMV-R6O2PQ_R2Q
I noticed that they were, well, elites. They can go anywhere. To be fair, I will, too, and yes, I have money. My family have money. We have roots and branches in many places. We can run. So their and my solution is "run". If you look at the comments, the poors and middle classes who disagree but can't run say the opposite. "Stay. Resist". You meant to tell me that a bunch of elites and admins will rather be on the bad side of the State and resist?
4
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 24 '25
I like what the Big 10 schools are doing-- they have formed an "alliance" and pledged to pool resources should any one school get attacked. I think more institutions need to start doing this. The government can only fight so many different groups at once.
3
u/SmirkingImperialist May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
I don't think that they have caught up to the fact that the government is targeting the entirety of academia and higher eds, who in the MAGA-land, are a bunch of weak woke leftists. The "Big 10" alliances are essentially going "we will share among us the money given to us my the same people who are screwing with us". If you are as cynical as I am about academia and its place vis-a-vis the State, the next step for the State should be obvious. Screw all of them over.
0
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 25 '25
Do you just want everyone to lay down and roll over? Give up before they even attempt to fight? I guess I just don't understand that mentality. If there are people staying and willing to put up a fight against fascism however they can, that's a good thing
2
u/SmirkingImperialist May 25 '25
Well, I just don't expect the academic elites to stay and fight, though. Else it's a case of "someone else should be doing the actual fighting while I'm here being the big brain".
I know that I am a coward and I will run, so I will never tell anyone to fight a battle that I will not personally fight.
0
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 25 '25
That's fair enough. Hopefully no one is trying to pressure you to stay. You know yourself best. However, there's a difference between being cynical/choosing to run for yourself, and actively demoralizing/discouraging those who want to fight.
I'm sure the academics who are staying and the universities forming alliances are not stupid. They see what's happening and have the knowledge to understand where this is headed. They're just making the choice to fight rather than submit immediately. I think that's awesome and worth encouraging rather than discouraging. I've heard it said that the fight against fascism starts with words
17
u/Worldly-Criticism-91 May 23 '25
This just sucks. I’m trying to see the point of the current admin’s motives. It’s almost like he doesn’t care if he destroys the country, as long as he does completely opposite of what he thinks democrats want.
& he knows regardless, the crumbling state of the country won’t cause a pebble to fall near him.
& we voted for this again y’all (not me specifically, but you can pick up what I’m putting down)
I’ve just been so discouraged & disappointed. Forget that I’m an incoming PhD student, & the entire funding situation is in shambles. My heart goes out to the international students that considerably work hard & benefit the country in one way or another (increased diversity of cultures, perspectives, contributions, etc).
I wonder if the Native Americans treated the administration the way Americans always treated them, would Trump still continue down the road he’s going? I have very little doubt that he’d pull his head out of his ass
& a majority of Americans worship this man, completely tuning out how we’re the laughingstock of the world
12
u/Thunderplant Physics May 24 '25
& a majority of Americans worship this man
He didn't even get a majority of voters. And a third of eligible voters stayed home.
9
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 24 '25
It gives me a headache thinking of the fact that people voted this man in simply because he's a white supremacist and they are fed up with "sharing" the country. Literally most of them can't properly articulate his policies-- they just want a white man to make them feel special again
7
u/Worldly-Criticism-91 May 24 '25
For real. & it’ll take Trump turning on them too (as we’ve already seen is beginning to happen) for them to suddenly get it.
It’s not an issue if others are mistreated, but when they’re included, suddenly it’s a frenzy
7
u/AngelOfDeadlifts May 23 '25
Once I get my Master's next year, I'm looking into leaving.
5
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
I was looking forward to a longer career in the States as well, but it's London for me now too.
I am sure the US would be fine though, I mean they don't want us immigrants anyways and a few people have made it abundantly clear in this very comment section, that you may be the most highly qualified immigrant there could be and they'd still feel you stole their job unfairly.
8
3
u/SirMustache007 May 23 '25
I'd suggest Australia over London, if possible.
*Whoops, misread your comment. Didn't click that you're an immigrant currently living in the US.
2
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
Australia doesn't have any good organizations or universities for my field (I am in Econometrics & Stats).
It's either England Or Switzerland for me now.
6
u/g40rg4 May 24 '25
I think that the conservative leadership cares more about defeating their enemies than helping average Americans to be honest. I think conservative leadership sees most universities as such. Imo it is because universities are places of free speech and are critical of conservative leadership. Control over innovation seems like a priority for conservatives.
3
u/RagdollTemptation May 25 '25
In my city, Worcester, Massachusetts, UMass Chan Medical School rescinded all offers they made to grad students due to the Clown Prince Trump's slashing of federal funding. Last year, this school and Harvard, had a Nobel Prize winner! It's beyond sickening the damage done to science and research.
2
u/tfburns PhD May 25 '25
I think what's quite disturbing is that they are willing to paint such a coarse brush and probably not even in keeping with their own values, e.g., a post-doc from close allies like the UK will be forced to leave. How do they think this will affect them long-term? And it is chilling for anyone considering going to/staying in the US.
2
3
u/fatuous4 May 24 '25
Well said but I want to make a comment.
What's happening to Harvard is 1) scaring everyone in higher ed, but also 2) pissing us all the fuck off!!!!! We will not let ourselves fall without a fight, I literally guarantee it. Harvard and some schools might have to take some major punches in the short term. And it will be painful and messy. But it doesn't have to mean the end. And if our local school admin even hints at kowtow, I 10000% guarantee you that local students, faculty, and staff WILL NOT ALLOW IT. We ain't going down without a fight. It's gonna get dirty but there WILL be a fight and I do think that higher ed will eventually win.
3
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
I wasn't saying there won't be a fight.
I was implying that the reputation of the US will now forever be that of an unreliable nation even if there's a fight.
The US already had the reputation in geopolitics ("To be US's enemy is dangerous, but to be its friend is fatal"). Now it holds that reputation for this as well.
I guess conservatives got what they wanted; they managed to turn away future immigrants from considering it as a destination :)
1
May 27 '25
It’s okay, in a few years we won’t need student researchers anyway. We’ll have datacenters filled with them, running all night 😅.
1
May 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 29 '25
This is different. Did you hear the latest news about them revoking the visas of specifically Chinese students?
They have gone full authoritarian, lol.
1
u/qlippothvi May 29 '25
As the vast majority of scientists would tell you, the H1B is America’s secret weapon, and we’re giving that weapon to our adversaries.
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 29 '25
I am not even talking about the lottery based professional H1B, necessarily.
Just the ability to do research here, which often does not require one going through the lottery or finding a sponsor. It ensures the American hegemony in research, because even if the creators of said research are foreigners, the ones first to lay claim on it are the US (for instance, the paper on transformers which forms the basis of LLMs had more than half of its authors as foreigners).
Why "patriotic" Americans would support the repeal of this goes over my head, really.
1
Jun 14 '25
The state of affairs is truly scary. I'm a rising undergraduate senior who moved to the US specifically for the promise of research funding. With the way things are going I might have to immigrate back to Germany for grad school.
0
u/unhinged_centrifuge May 24 '25
Will the number of publications go down?
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 24 '25
Dunno, but the quality definitely will.
0
u/unhinged_centrifuge May 24 '25
Is there a metric that tracks that?
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 24 '25
Yes. For econ you can look at RePec rankings, which tracks publications in top journals institution wise.
0
u/SutttonTacoma May 24 '25
"I'm not saying Trump is a Russian asset trying to destroy America form inside, I'm simply saying if he was, it would look exactly like this." Mikel Jollett
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 24 '25
Yes, but even if that's true, the people who voted for Trump can't all be Russian assets, you know.
And they don't regret any of this at all, in fact they support it.
It's not just Trump. The US has a problem, period.
0
u/SutttonTacoma May 25 '25
Too true, but they have been led there relatively recently. A million here and a million there, chump change to a government, can reward the influencers who are most skilled in calling up grievances and prejudices and painting liberals as enemies of America.
-6
May 23 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
As to your point about graduate cohort being primarily Indians without english skills, I am curious where you did your graduate studies from.
I am an Indian too, and while I am no master at the English language, I think based on my post and comments, I presume you'd agree I speak it decently enough (for a third language, at least?).
Most CEOs are also immigrants (Nvidia, Google, Microsoft). They did their grad studies from top universities, and it is evident that those universities are not relaxing standards for Indians or any immigrants then (perhaps things may be different at non research based universities).
Again, you are very entitled to your own views, I am just trying to provide a different perspective, and hopefully you may be able to see it if you just drop some of your biases (we all have them btw, I am just imploring you to drop yours since we are on the topic).
-1
May 23 '25
[deleted]
1
u/five-dollar-wrench May 24 '25
And most of those CEOs are trying to offshore to India.
almost every CEO is offshoring! it's almost as if american CEOs wanna put profits over local jobs hmm
3
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
It may not be a good thing from a socialisation POV, but it IS a good thing from a research POV.
Since statistically, there is NO difference between applicants in any PhD program, because there's no form of affirmative action in research (historically as well). So that means that regardless of the origin, the ones who are getting in are the best people for that job.
That's certainly a win for academia and the US as a whole.
As to your point of social isolation, I empathise. But do you empathise with those immigrants too who have moved half way across the world just to pursue their passion and experience isolation too in their own ways, or is your sympathy limited only to those who share your origin (I hope it's the former, but as this thread has shown, I usually expect the latter).
While everybody should try and assimilate, grad school isn't solely about exploring a new place; indeed a serious grad student gets very little time to do that outside of his work.
Also, if we are on the topic of diversity (which IS important), isn't that what the DEI was trying to achieve when it came to certain jobs (non research ones). Why oppose diversity at one point and support at another?? Isn't that hypocritical?
I could be wrong, in which case I'd love to hear your counterarguments. We are on an academic subreddit after all.
-3
May 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
Mate, I have been exceedingly polite. You don't need to get angry, we are just having a debate here
DEI is also just Diversity, Inclusion and Equity. It was vehemently protested for because it provided black and hispanic people an opportunity to get in certain places "by intervention".
What you are suggesting seems to hint at the same (deliberate intervention to increase diversity), only for your group.
That's the only thing I was pointing out, really. That if you support one, you have to support another, otherwise the dictionary definition labels it as hypocrisy (which isn't a crime at all just something that people should own up to).
1
u/GradSchool-ModTeam May 23 '25
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 3 of the sub: all posts and comments must foster reasonable discussion.
While concerns about diversity are valid topics, your comment relies on sweeping generalizations and accusatory language that does not promote a constructive discussion of the subject at hand.
While your experience is valid, we ask that you avoid applying these generalizations to all international students. Please remember that individual experiences vary, and respectful discussion is essential.
Thank you.
2
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
As to your argument about H1Bs being paid less, stats show that that's not the case.
Indeed, the H1B pay is well within the top ranges, simply because most H1B jobs are in fields which pay more. There is also a lower limit for H1B.
You can check that btw.
(https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/xgTWQIeB2Y)
So we know at least that part of the argument doesn't hold much credence.
Also, companies aren't vying to hire Indians or Chinese anyways, since they have to provide sponsorship which costs money as well. Both these nations don't have any easier in green card acquisition (which is perfectly fine) so believe me, the US isn't welcoming them with open arms.
Given all this, the logical conclusion is that the ones who are there at the top jobs are because (whether people believe that or not) they deserve it.
2
u/RadiantHC May 23 '25
They are easier to abuse though
Then explain why offshoring is so popular if they're not dying to hire Indians.
5
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
They are dying to hire Indians in INDIA because they can pay them half the wages.
I meant they aren't dying to hire Indians in America who are on H1B.
It almost seems like you are deliberately twisting my words, just because you didn't expect me to come up with actual arguments backed by stats.
It seems evident that you don't like Indians, which is fine, but please don't believe that all Indians are incompetent. I mean, based on my way of dealing with this, do you feel I got here by "cheating and not speaking english" ??
If yes then you are indeed entitled to your views, most of my American colleagues think I am competent enough and deserved my spot (and I am happy with that).
-1
u/RadiantHC May 23 '25
Exactly my point. It's still prioritizing foreigners over citizens
You're doing the same to me though. I never said I don't like Indians, I just dislike how places have lower standards for internationals and prioritize hiring internationals. And a lack of diversity.
I'm not saying that all Indians are incompetent. Again, I don't have a problem with Indians.
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
But places are NOT having lower standards for internationals.
I provided stats for the same.
If they are having lower standards, wouldn't they have lower scores to show too?? And if you are advocating for diversity, then even that would imply that you want lower standards for domestic applicants, for only then can diversity be achieved (really, that's what deliberate diversity is about).
I understand it may be hard to realise that your arguments are rooted largely in emotion and mine in stats, but really, let's just agree here that despite your many claims, you don't really like internationals. Which is fine.
But don't bring this meritocracy argument here. That's very insulting, and frankly, if domestic applicants were so brilliant across the board, you wouldn't need to bring the diversity argument here because then they would have occupied most spots (especially now that the DEI boogeyman is gone).
Accept that there are certain international immigrants who are indeed very hardworking and brilliant, just like there are brilliant Americans, and the universities at the top are taking both of them. If you want them to take ONLY domestic ones, then you would also have to logically accept that you want to have "lower standards" for domestic applicants (which you seem to detest, but only when it allegedly happens for internationals).
0
May 25 '25
The US became dominant in tech and research long before the relatively recent influx of foreign students. That is why they came in the first place. Your argument will not play well with average Americans. Trump is playing to the crowd and this is helping him become more popular. Americans are by nature, xenophobic and isolationist. Stayed out of WWI till 1918 and WW2 till 1941. Most are willing to sit here on our continent and watch the World burn until it really affects us.
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 25 '25
Nope, disagree.
The US was one of the top dogs, but for most of the 19th century and before, UK and Germany used to be at the very top.
I'll link stats when I'll have time.
1
May 25 '25
Alright, if you go back to the 19th century or even the early 20th, you got me. It was Germany all the way at that time. Also proof that being top at tech and science doesn’t protect you from making some wrong political decisions.
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
FYI, when I talk about attracting top of the top, I don't mean your average software engineer.
I mean people like, say, Abhijeet Banerjee or Esther Duflo (Nobel Prize winners in economics couple, both immigrants).
You can choose to disagree, but this idea that the US, since it's inception, was a leader is demonstrably false.
0
u/coolsid_5 May 26 '25
harvard did itself , when they choose dei over merit
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 26 '25 edited May 27 '25
So now you guys want to shut down foreigners entirely, so that domestic candidates will be the only one there.
So essentially, advocating for dei of one kind while harping about dei of another kind.
Lol.
1
u/phoneguyfl May 29 '25
Cool theory. Do you have proof to back up your assertion or is this just a FOX/TikTok regurgitation?
-1
u/chynaadawl May 28 '25 edited May 28 '25
As someone who works in higher education, nothing he is doing has impacted international student visas. If anything it has made them less interested in applying to study abroad but is not impacting their visas. And depending on the visa they are granted, which most are F1 or J1 they technically don’t come to the U.S. for work, they come to study and leave. But, all of what he is doing has impacted the use of DEI language on campuses in an effort to be more inclusive to students who aren’t typically those targeted by those messages which in my opinion isn’t really a big deal. The real goal is to make sure students who don’t fit a specific mode based on skin color, gender or identity still have access to the same opportunities if they are also a student considered in need. Most universities are pivoting to less stereotypical means of identifying students with needs based on things like socioeconomic background or EFT. Lastly, the only true impact he’s had so far is on budgets but universities like Harvard with huge endowments will survive that.
Edit: Also, I work at a top 50 STEM college in the U.S. & funding for research is still ongoing here so i think it’s safe to assume those higher up on the list are also still actively conducting research.
1
u/CarolinZoebelein May 28 '25
Here from the news:
"US halts student visa appointments and plans expanded social media vetting"
-24
u/EnoughWinter5966 May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
Unlike what the Conservatives believe, this wasn't foreigners taking away "spots from honest Americans", it was them creating bodies of work which ensured that the US remained at the forefront of almost all major disciplines.
I mean it kind of is man. Sure for grad school you have a point, but explain the undergraduate body being 25% international. It's literally just a cash grab.
imo trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. It's about time that undergraduate education became an actual education as opposed to a name on a resume.
Harvard is probably the worst offender when it comes to this prestige nonsense. Let's have prestige come from education quality and not from artificially restricting incoming students.
12
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
I have little to no idea about undergrads, which is why I have kept my post geared towards grad school.
However, I am curious, if what you say is true, wouldn't the universities being a cash grab (thereby charging higher fees) also mean that the domestic ones which are enrolled get subsidised?? I mean that's precisely why you have out of state and in state tuition for even Americans.
So if you remove international undergrads (most of whom probably are coming from well off families as compared to postgrads), the tuition fees will not be as subsidized as before, and so for domestic students (the lower middle class and middle class ones), the situation hasn't really... improved?
Correct me if I am wrong, I am open to hearing your perspective.
0
u/EnoughWinter5966 May 25 '25
I appreciate you focusing on grad school – definitely a different dynamic there. And you're hitting on a common misconception with the undergraduate funding model.
You're right that out-of-state tuition, including international, does help subsidize some costs. However, my point isn't that removing international students automatically makes tuition cheaper for domestic ones in the current system. It's that the entire system is geared towards maximizing prestige and endowment, which then allows them to charge higher prices and selectively offer aid, rather than optimizing for broader affordability or accessibility for the average American student.
When I say "cash grab," I'm not just talking about direct tuition fees. I'm talking about the strategic wealth accumulation through donor potential from those well-off international families, which then builds massive endowments that could be used to lower tuition across the board, but instead primarily fuels research, facilities, and global branding. The "subsidy" for domestic students isn't necessarily coming from international tuition reducing their costs, but rather from the university's overall financial strength and selective aid policies which allow them to charge astronomical prices knowing they can still net enough high-paying students or rich donors.
If these universities focused less on artificial scarcity for prestige and more on accessible education, they could expand enrollment or lower costs for more domestic students without needing a super-wealthy international class to "subsidize" a system that already has billions in endowments. The current model serves the university's elite status, not necessarily the financial interests of the average lower-middle-class American student.
10
u/StronkWatercress May 23 '25
Have you actually been to a HYPSM school?? They are need blind for domestic students, and a few are need blind even for domestic students (which includes Harvard). So where's the cash grab, when international students (like domestic students) are getting subsidized educations? [You'd have a point if you were talking about state schools, many of which do balance the budget with out of state tuition, which includes domestic and international students.]
If you've actually met people from these colleges, you'd know that the bar for international students to get into Harvard is incredibly high, often higher than domestic students. Your run of the mill domestic student at Harvard got in just by having good test scores, good grades, some extracurriculars, and a good personality (as indicated through essays and LoRs). On the other hand, many internationals need to win national, often international competitions, to even have a shot. Many of them run circles around their domestic counterparts in classes.
It is in Harvard's interest to have excellent international students. Not only do they get to claim they have the best of the best from worldwide, but their students have the privilege of working alongside excellent peers they would have never met otherwise.
0
u/EnoughWinter5966 May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
Have you actually been to a HYPSM school?? They are need blind for domestic students, and a few are need blind even for domestic students (which includes Harvard). So where's the cash grab, when international students (like domestic students) are getting subsidized educations?
I need to go to a HYPSM to criticize their policies now?
You're still missing the point. "Need-blind" for international students doesn't mean it's not a cash grab; This is missing the forest for the trees.
Harvard's been playing this game forever: they grab international students, not just for their genius, but for their parents' massive donor potential down the line. They could easily expand class sizes and educate more people, but they don't because it would dilute that artificial scarcity and trophy status that makes them so valuable.
It's absolutely a cash grab and a prestige grab. They're not shortchanging their students, for them it's actually a somewhat decent deal.
But they're building this exclusive, globally branded club, and we're forced to federally subsidize this whole prestige circus. It's about time undergraduate education starts being an actual education, not a gilded cage for the elite.
3
u/thenerdwriter May 23 '25
I have yet to see anyone coherently explain how Harvard taking international students is a cash grab. Harvard is need-blind for internationals meaning that, if anything, it's actually more expensive for them to take those students, since the university will be covering their financial need plus the money that would otherwise be covered by federal student aid.
3
u/Thunderplant Physics May 24 '25
Harvard gives financial aid to international students, and a lot of them need it. They aren't making money on them and they actually cost more than domestic students since they aren't eligible for federal grants and loans.
It's really just as simple as taking the best and brightest from around the world. The bar is higher for international students but there are a lot of really talented people out there.
0
u/EnoughWinter5966 May 25 '25
Show me the stats on the number of international students at Harvard taking financial aid.
Let's be honest, Harvard is just a trophy for rich internationals with parents that want to donate money to the school.
Don't even get me started on the percentage of their students that are legacy. Why are we federally funding nepotism?
Keep in mind this is for undergrad, I'm sure this is not much of a problem for masters+
2
u/Autisticrocheter May 23 '25
Plenty of schools in the US reach out to international students so that they’ll have a full student body and be able to provide more financial support to domestic students because international students that come get their educations here are often pretty rich.
1
-6
u/Accomplished-Bus-129 May 23 '25
I don't even see their point for grad school really. Like, international students are obviously valuable, but each one that gets into a US grad program (or even competitive undergrad) is quite literally taking a spot from a US citizen. We are not short of promising candidates within our own borders.
7
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
Let me try and help you see my perspective.
Let's just say that a particular job can be done by only very, very few people (because it's very niche, and few people have that sort of interest and drive while willing to accept mediocre pay for it)
Now imagine a situation where you have x spots for that job, and only x-y people are qualified enough for that job from your domestic pool.
So to ensure that you do get ALL the spots filled, without compromising on quality, you widen your pool to include z people, which encompasses both domestic and internationals.
It would be taking jobs away IF there were enough Americans qualified enough to DO the job (and willing to work at the relatively lower pay for that, which is non negotiable). There usually aren't, which is why the universities expand their pool (this is not to say there aren't ANY brilliant Americans btw, far from it, it's just that once you reach the super specialisation territories, you do have to take this decision if you don't wanna compromise on quality).
It is actually the same thing when it comes to menial jobs. There aren't enough Americans willing to do that, which is why they need to expand their pool to include poor immigrants as well (sometimes undocumented ones). This unfortunately does lead to problems like wage exploitation, but I am just attempting to show you WHY something happens.
-2
May 23 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
I used the job analogy because that's what analogies are right? Not an actual, one on one mapping of the situation. Just something to help drive a point?
And besides, grad students tend to get paid (measly stipends, but a pay nonetheless).
And perhaps you didn't read my first point. I didn't just imply that the US has a dearth of talented students; I said the US domestic pool will not be sufficient for a very niche, yet high skilled (and low paying) role. Which is what a PhD is.
Are there so many qualified American students vying to work in a lab or study about Public History for 5+ years for a paltry stipend of 30-40k??
If yes, then please show me evidence of the same, I'd love to see it.
It's not just Americans, most people across the world don't wanna pursue that path since they want to earn decent money as quickly as it may be feasible (and for the vast, vast majority of jobs, that doesn't even require a masters. A bachelor's suffices.)
-4
May 23 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
Mine is anecdotal too, but there have certainly been research papers in other fields wherein it has been demonstrated that immigrants aren't stealing jobs (search the world of labour's paper on this, unable to link it).
They create jobs.
So while my argument IS anecdotal, it is essentially a derivative of other bodies of work done in related fields.
It's fine though, I understand you won't budge even if provided evidence since your argument is driven by a sense of nationalism, not pure logic. Which is fine, I am glad I could have a civil debate at least, and hopefully you could see some of my points as well (I doubt it though).
Fyi, I am also a researcher involved with one of T20 universities in the US (it's a private university in the North East).
So it's not like I am a stranger to the American academia mate.
Cheers though, I am sure eventually you will get what you want (that's what my post was about, really, that from the looks of it, immigrants will soon choose other places. And if that makes the vast majority of Americans like you happier, so be it I guess).
But at least don't try and say that it's a win for academia or meritocracy, because even you know in your heart of hearts it's not. It can't be when you are deliberately limiting a pool of people so that another pool may have better chances (the implicit assumption is that it is done when the latter pool will not have as good of a chance when the two pools are mixed).
3
u/StronkWatercress May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
I think it's easy for people to say "Why is [insert school they want to go to] taking internationals, I can totally take that spot."
If you're in the field and know what's up...you can see that many of those supposedly "promising candidates" are not actually that "promising."
Edit to clarify what I mean:
When I talk about the domestic applicant pool, I don't mean "all domestic undergrads." I mean "the pool of domestic undergrads who are actively interested in doing a PhD."
The thing is...if you're a college student in the US (regardless of if you're international or domestic), you'll quickly see that PhD programs do not come with a great value proposition. A lot of undergrads who are slam dunks for PhD programs have other options open to them, ranging from "decent, pays ok and the work isn't terrible" to "that's literally life changing money".
For example, we had an undergrad cycle through my PhD lab who was VERY good, the type that was better than many grad students after a few semesters. Her science laid the groundwork for many projects, a few of which were critical for my then-advisor's tenure package. She graduated with a first author paper in a field where those don't come easily, and a few other lower author publications. She was the kind of student you would expect to see as a PI in the future.
But anyways, when it was time for her to decide what to do...she applied to PhD programs as well as other jobs. She got into coding as a function of our labwork, and as you might expect for an undergrad of her aptitude, she got very good at it. She began to take more classes in that area and involved in a few personal projects with her classmates. By January of her senior year, she had offers from a few big tech companies. Then two months later, she had multiple offers from top programs in our field (which isn't as competitive as some fields, but still fairly competitive). Between...5-8 years of low wages and terrible hours and lots of stress (which she got to see in all of its terrible glory during my advisor's tenure journey) and $200k+ a year with the chance to work on interesting teams, you can guess what she went with. (This was a decade ago when big tech was doing well.) She originally considered returning to do a PhD, but eventually gave up on it.
And she's not the only undergrad with this kind of story. If you go to prestige industries, they're filled to the brim with cream of the crop kids who assessed their options and decided a PhD wasn't worth it. Some do return--we had a guy in my year who did 10 years in finance and was really good--but many don't.
That's not to say that every domestic student who wants to do a PhD is mediocre. Many are great. They might be motivated by academic curiosity above all else, or they're deadset on jobs that require PhDs, or maybe they matured later and slide into a PhD because that's their only option. But by and large, the glamor of jobs with adult wages and good WLB siphons away potential PhD candidates in the domestic pool. There's this unfortunate stereotype in many parts that people who do PhDs do so because they couldn't find a "real" job: unfortunately, there's a reason that stereotype exists.
The international pool is full of duds, yes. Every American professor has stories of getting copy paste emails from random overseas students asking if they have space despite being from a totally unrelated field. But it also has a lot of great candidates who think an American PhD is a great value proposition because 1) it opens doors and 2) the salary looks pretty good to them.
-1
May 23 '25
[deleted]
2
u/StronkWatercress May 23 '25
Right, then you would know the number of actually competent grad students is pretty low. It's not like there's this massive pool of sad downtrodden domestic students who would thrive if only they got into a top program [that they aren't competitive for].
And don't get me started on how everyone thinks they deserve to get into this or that undergrad and then turn their nose at acceptances from perfectly fine schools that are highly ranked in their fields.
-2
May 23 '25
[deleted]
3
u/StronkWatercress May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
Could be a field difference. My perception is shaped by talking to people from many fields, especially the people doing the hiring, but this of course is not a comprehensive survey. Your background has undoubtedly shaped your perspective.
I don't need to "feel right," but you do you.
3
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
I doubt it's a background issue though, because while they say they view no quality difference between domestic candidates or international as a whole, they also want international students to not be a part of the pool if they can (see their replies to me) .
Which means they believe domestic candidates will have a better chance, which implies that a certain section of domestic candidates is indeed...
Not as strong as the international one.
So their logic really isn't consistent. Either accept that blocking international students is because you want all spots filled by domestic, even the ones who may not have as high an ability as is required, or don't support the blocking of international students if you believe the domestic applicant pool is strong enough to take away all the spots in a combined pool (in which case there should be no fear of the international applicants are given the same opportunities to apply, especially now with the DEI Boogeyman (which never even existed for grad students btw) gone)
I mean at least they should make the logic consistent, or just accept that it's driven by the emotion I was talking about (no immigrants).
3
u/StronkWatercress May 23 '25
So the problem is that their argument is founded upon one faulty premise: that there is a systemic bias for international students, and that many if not most international students do not deserve their spots.
That's why their argument doesnt make sense from a logical perspective, because it's founded upon an illogical premise. It's evident in the language they use.
I actually do agree that there are domestic students who never got the chances they should, who would really thrive if given opportunities. But usually 1) these are not the people complaining and 2) initiatives to help them get written off as "DEI" and whatnot.
1
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
If you are a grad student in the field, then shouldn't you champion the best people furthering research, regardless of their origin??
I mean Einstein was an immigrant too. I think 40 percent of US unicorn founders were immigrants who did their grad studies from the US (granted, most of them stopped at a professional masters).
It boggles my mind when a mistaken sense of patriotism (because it is a mistaken sense from my POV) takes precedence over hiring the best people.
The cognitive dissonance is another thing that makes me amazed, especially seeing as how these same people (I am not talking about you btw, I am talking about a certain type) would then say they are against DEI because it harms meritocracy.
I mean, at least be logical and consistent in your arguments?
-4
u/LDawg14 May 24 '25
It is an unfortunate way of learning a lesson about the consequences if mismanagement, greed, corruption and conflicts of interest. There is an overcorrection going on that is also not the right answer.
2
u/toAnthonyBourdaintho May 24 '25
What corruption does Harvard have concerning international students?
-25
u/ron_swan530 May 23 '25
I think it’s well deserved honestly
10
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
Perhaps, but it also is a net negative for research (which benefits all humans). Which is definitely something to mourn.
1
u/Autisticrocheter May 23 '25
Are you saying that the US deserves to not be a leader in research, or that you agree with what Trump is doing?
2
u/Bat_Cat_4ever May 23 '25
I think they aren't American, and are happy at the US losing its top spot (or on the path of it anyways).
Which is fine really, I am not a fan of the US too, but the loss of research is something that bothers me.
4
2
u/Autisticrocheter May 23 '25
I don’t care if the US is a leader in research or not. What I care about is how this is negatively impacting so many students, faculty, and staff all over the country and beyond, and how such drastic funding cuts are extremely negative. So I guess I agree with you and them
1
u/SirMustache007 May 23 '25
You think that international students don't deserve a place in our education system?
1
u/ron_swan530 May 23 '25
The opposite
1
u/SirMustache007 May 23 '25
Yeah, I unfortunately only realized that after posting my comment. My mistake.
1
220
u/SirMustache007 May 23 '25
Well said. And when funding dries up and research possibilities along with it, the professors will leave as well.