Why Is US Grad School Mainly Non-US Students? 1131
I am a new graduate student in Computer Engineering. I would like to get my MS and possibly my Ph.D. I have learned that 90% of my department is from India and many others are from China. All the students come here to study and there are only 7 US citizens in the engineering program this year. Why is that? I have heard that many of the smarter Americans go into medicine or the law and that is why there are so few Americans in engineering. Is this true?
You have asked and answered your own question (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a matter of economics, are you going to invest that much money and time in something when significant portions of the grad level work is being exported out of the country? With major corporations from the likes of Microsoft to IBM hiring principally outside the US in China and India, this is where the jobs will be and thus, where the grad students are coming from.
The real slap in the face of the whole thing is that said companies than have the audacity to complain that we don't have enough educated workers to provide a workforce here in America.
Quite simple (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought about going to grad school for Biology as I have a keen interest in various fish and some local rivers & streams ecology that I picked up on my own. I had a sit down with the Dean of the Biology department where we basically shot the shit for an hour or two, talking about various subjects, including programs at other schools. He seemed surprised that not only did I know who the "big names" in my relatively obscure interests, but that I was also reading their papers and applying them. He looked at me and asked me point blank: Why the hell aren't you in my department? And I didn't have a good answer. He went on to explain that there's a ton of people in Biology grad school, but none of them were actually biologists. Instead, they were padding grades and trying to get into med school. While he was most certainly happy that they were going on with their lives, he said finding people actually interested in Biology was like pulling teeth. Basically: he'd pick someone like me, regardless of my GRE scores for the most part, over a mountain of med school hopefuls because it was his job, as far as he was concerned, to educate biologists. It was an interesting conversation. "Man, you could get your doctorate just doing what you're doing now at home on your own dime..."
And no, I didn't go to grad school. Not yet, anyway.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, given that America seems to have less and less use for advanced training I don't suppose it will matter in the long run.
Anti-intellectualism in the US (Score:1, Interesting)
Show me the money (Score:2, Interesting)
No. It's not that the smart ones are, in particular, not going into science and engineering. It's that more _people in general_ are going into things like law, the financial sector, etc., which means that statistically more of the really good people will go in those directions as well (although we can, of course, point out that someone who is good at law or finance might not be good at engineering or science, and vice versa). Science and engineering no longer have the draw they used to, particularly after the tech bubble burst.
I don't really know why this is. Could be a lot of things. Could be that we're more materialistic, and that yes, you can ultimately make more money in those sectors (although most of the people I know who graduated from law school are fleeing the practice of law like rats from a sinking ship). Could be that people used to go into science because it was more prestigious and indeed patriotic to do so after Sputnik scared the living shit out of us. Nothing like a hostile nation launching something over your heads for the first time to convince you that falling behind technologically could leave you in the middle of mushroom cloud, momentarily wishing you'd studied more math before you vaporize.
Combine that with the fact that tech is the best way to get out of India and China and come to the US, and maybe that explains the disparity.
Regardless, it says very bad things about our future as a country.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Easy answer (Score:3, Interesting)
A way to stay in the USA (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, as an American who has a graduate degree, all I can say is, unless you're going to teach at the college level, do research, or need a graduate degree for some professional certification (Law, Medicine, Psychotherapy, etc...), a graduate degree is completely worthless and a waste of time. Want to learn more in a field that you are truly passionate about? Learn on your own. Grad school will just stifle your interest and creativity (playing to professors BS games, is one way they do it) and they'll make you do a lot of BS busy work becuase some bureaucrat with a Ph.D. somewhere thinks that's what you "must" do.
Just my bitter opinion.
Re: Why Is US Grad School Mainly Non-US Students? (Score:2, Interesting)
YMMV
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah questions...
Re:You have asked and answered your own question (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in a traditionally underpaid part of the tech-industry (entertainment software), and I can still make a good living at it. Not "rock star" good, but "new car and house" good.
I use to think that the Microsoft's of the industry were just trying to save some cash by hiring workers overseas, until I had to interview for a co-worker. I'm surprised at a)the limited number of people in the US looking for a programming job and b)the almost complete lack of skill by those who did.
Long story short, after a year of looking we couldn't fill the position at any price.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Interesting)
In my experience, yes. Most Americans go to college to "get a better job" or because they want to enter a certain field. They are, to coin a phrase, "goal oriented" -- school is a funnel into which they jump and once they get out the other end they can go back to living their lives, only now they will have been granted permission to enter into the career of their choice. So-called elite schools are desirable, not because they offer a better learning experience, but because they will "look better" to potential employers.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:2, Interesting)
Same thing happens in Sweden (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyhow, when they return to China, because most of them do that, they bring a lot of skills back into their country. It is fascinating what China will be capable of in 50 years or so, with all that engineering talent they are cultivating. It is not only the amount of educated people they are producing now, but also what the current generation will be able to teach the next, etc.
But I think it is also a good thing, more educated people in the world means better lives for everyone, especially in China. Pretty soon people will also probably demand more democracy and so on..
Same problem in Canada... (Score:1, Interesting)
Some of the problem, is that North American youth -- like our parents -- have become spoiled and lazy (in addition to politically stupid). The universities are taking students from where they can to keep enrollment up and the money flowing.
Re:Show me the money (Score:3, Interesting)
I work with H1-B holders: lots of them. On the whole, they work hard and are smart. As for ability, they've got the bell curve just like everyone else has. I won't venture to guess where the H1-B mean is compared to the American mean. The differences between educational systems and cultural norms are too great, but in terms of job performance, I couldn't say either group is consistently better. Depends on what you're trying to do. But the employers' assertion that they're more qualified than Americans to do that work is a self-serving lie. The real "qualification" is their greater willingness to put up with exploitation than a local. So, as a grad student, why would I bust my ass to go into an artificially saturated market?
Re:med school has fewer? Hahahaahaa... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$$chool. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, graduate school (at least on the doctoral level) in science and engineering is usually very well funded. Not only is it common to get free tuition, but it is also common to receive a stipend. It's less than you'd get working, but it's still something.
Not so in medicine or law, AFAIK.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:1, Interesting)
Figuring long-term net gain or loss is almost impossible. Some of these students stay and obtain permanent visas; they would be expected to pay taxes on substantial earnings for a long time. Others, more today than ever, go home, where their new credentials enable them to take jobs that used to be done by Americans, but at large discounts due to local prices (thus putting Americans out of work or forcing them to skill up in response but also lowering the cost of Americans' insatiable consumption fetish). And some, too many, overstay, taking illegal jobs (often at or below minimum wage) and paying no income or payroll taxes. There are gains and losses for every US citizen in all three cases, and I don't pretend I could compute the overall balance. If it concerns you, you should think about the more fundamental issues in the tax code rather than singling out foreign students for a cost/benefit analysis.
And yes, I'm a native-born US citizen.
Re:Teachers don't teach (Score:1, Interesting)
Ah yes, that explains why so many foreign students are coming here to study....
I'm an engineer and I'll tell you why (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a masters in chemical engineering. I come from a family of engineers: my dad's an engineer, his dad was one, and my father in law is one -- altogether we cover electrical, civil, chemical, and industrial.
Here's my take on why so few Americans are going into engineering:
I worked for Lockheed and several other major corporations as an engineer, and the standard practice is to hire 'em, and fire 'em. One Christmas they corralled us all together and told us they were going to lay off 110 engineers. Being the youngest in the group, I thought I would be going. But no! It was the guys with 20+ years that got the ax. Guys with kids in college, with mortgages, who'd been loyal to the company. I saw my future and got the hell out. I'm in IT now, and even though things have been a little rough since dot bomb, they worst year in IT is better than the best year in engineering.
Why go to school for fours years in a very difficult subject only to get treated like cattle? Engineers make the world run, they make things that absolutely cannot ever break, live up to impossible standards, spend years in training, and get absolutely not gratitude whatsoever in return, either in salary or respect. I think its time they unionize.
I think this has become clear even to the kids. I remember my wife was offered a full ride to a very prestigious school for engineering. She went to a couple of companies in high school to see what engineers do, and turned it down. She paid to go to a state school, got a degree in communications, and is much happier for it.
When engineers start getting treated better, then more people will do it.Excellent article on that very subject (Score:3, Interesting)
Insightful, if a little depressing. He gives some pointers on how to counter the trend though.
Re:Short answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Because engineering speaks the universal language - Mathematics. Medicine and law requires much more English and culture-specific communication skills, and it is very difficult for foreign students to break into these professions (except British students perhaps).
It is also one of the reasons your medical and legal bills are going through the roof, but your laptops keep dropping in price.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I know, it's most likely just an amusing typo written in a hurry. The USA is infamous for the poor quality of high schools but famous for the high quality of postgraduates. The undergrads in the middle must have it fairly tough to get to be good enough to go into a postgraduate program.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment is interesting. Apparently, as an American I'm not to be allowed to make legitimate commentary on activities and trends happening within the borders of my own country that I perceive as being detrimental to me and mine. Nor, as an American, am I permitted to believe that our immigration laws should be considered anything more than a minor inconvenience for anyone, from anywhere, who decides they want to live here. Tell you what: go to any other country on Earth and try that. You'll be laughed out of the room.
What I object to (besides the fact that America is willingly training its competition in the global economy) is the fundamental hypocrisy I see in most discussions on this issue. Any person from another country that perceives any kind of a threat from the United States feels perfectly free to criticize and lambaste us for all sorts of real and imagined misdeeds: it's become a form of entertainment it appears. But let an American call a halt and say, "Now just wait a goddamned minute. What's being done to us isn't kosher either" and he is immediately called all sorts of names (someone recently called me a "paleface") and dismissed as a bigoted fool.
I have as much right as anyone to look at what it is happening all around me, and call 'em as I see 'em. And I will
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:5, Interesting)
We sold weapons to Iran before and after the Shah. We just concluded a massive weapons deal with Saudi Arabia. To be honest, I don't think Saudi Arabia or 90's era Liberia are any more democratic than North Korea. Don't claim the moral high-ground unless you can justify giving 20 billion USD in advanced weaponry to a tyrannical theocracy known for sponsoring terrorism.
And as for China's willingness to invade democracies when it suits their self interest, see what the US did in 1956 to Iran(Check out Operation Ajax on Wikipeida), and what the US did to Guatemala during the Cold war; Or what the CIA did in Chile, or the Congo, I could go on.
Of course, every country with power and influence has black marks. See France's activities in West Africa and Rwanda, their current activities in Niger, to say nothing of their history in Indochina and Algeria; Or see the UK's actions in Uganda, Former Rhodesia, Iran, and Suez. Don't even get me started on Russia or Israel.
The truth is, governments are rather soulless entities, which by design act in their own self-interest. To ascribe personal qualities to them like evil is idiotic and counter-productive. Instead, we have to understand the pressures a nation's leaders face.
China is an ethnic powder keg teeming with religious and ethnic strife, Jingoism, and hyper-Nationalism. They have massive inequalities of wealth, and a population schooled in Marxism. In the meantime, rapid economic, political, and demographic trends have made most government and societal institutions irrelevant.
Faced with this, what do you think the Chinese leaders want the most? Stability. Every single action they take, from supporting dictatorships in Burma and North Korea, to propping up the US economy with bond purchases, to refusing to float their currency. China has no urge to pick a fight with America, not now and not ever. They have their own problems to worry about, and the last thing they want to do is add another.
Re:smart is lame. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got around another year of coursework, and possibly another year after that to finish out a dissertation. When I started my PhD programme, the work I did for the first month was somewhat bland and didn't challenge me. After that initial period, I had the chance to work on some interesting research in medical engineering, authored a few conference papers with my adviser, finished up a journal publication and took a few courses in my discipline. Once I started to touch on the interesting subjects, like pattern recognition, neural networks, machine vision, computational microbiology, etc., I started to really enjoy being a student and yearned for more knowledge. Of course, I also wanted to have a firm background in my area of focus, so I could venture forth into industry once I finally graduate.
Yes, the days were long, and there were plenty of times I thought that I wouldn't have everything done, that I'd do poorly on my exams, etc., but everything just boils down to your perseverance and your adviser's willingness to work with you. Since I'm an RA, I'm expected to work a certain number of hours per week, but often my adviser allows me to work on my publications instead. Whenever I need to bounce some ideas off of him, or just get his approval, I sit down with the guy for at least half an hour. Considering we meet two or three times per week, and the fact that he's heavily knowledgeable and respected in his field, I walk out of his office with a very good insight into a particular problem. Of course, had my adviser not been so willing to work with me, provided me with some fun and engaging research projects, let alone take a chance and fund me, I honestly wouldn't have stayed past a Masters degree.
Is this phenomenon all bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:and? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:1, Interesting)
Like offshoring work to certain areas, it would actually be more expensive to do the same thing with native students.
Re:Most people live outside the US (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:90% of those who apply are probably from India. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:90% of those who apply are probably from India. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Because a majority of US citizens are poor? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree with your assertion that a technology-heavy workforce is not necessary for a strong economy. That might be true for a small economy that has a strong influx of money for some other reason (Switzerland), but wealth is created by advancing technology. Why has the US economy been so strong for most of our lifetimes? Because we have the most lawyers? Or, because we had the best technology ranging from automobiles, to airplanes, to semiconductors to electronics, to some of the most efficient food production, to construction?
Looking through history, countries were economically strong compared to the rest of the world mostly because they had better technology. Most of the time, those countries raised their own standard of living and sold the products of that technology at great profit. Sure, there were colonizing powers that leveraged internal instability of their colonies to rule and steal, but for the most part such powers also had superior military technology. Which is still better technology.
My friends at NEC in Japan are very worried about Samsung because they are making stuff that people want to buy. Through better technology. That they originally learned from the Japanese and the US but have been refining.
There has been a marked increase in the number of Korean graduate students in top engineering schools over the last 10 to 15 years by the way.
Re:and? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a load of nonsense. You're making 2 assumptions:
1) That advanced socities have complex law.
2) Lawyers are needed.
An "advanced" society will have people who have internalized the law -- they don't need others to interpret it for them. Do YOU need a law against killing? Of course not -- you know better. A civilization where people are blind to the consequences of their actions is not advanced. Advanced socities have LESS laws, because in reality there is only a few Laws: The Law of Karma, and the Law of Love, everything else springs from ignorance, greed, or power.
Western civilization is by no means advanced. When you still have people arguing over Intellectual Property Rights which are neither Property nor Rights, you have an IMMATURE society.
Lawyers are a necessary evil, because people don't know any better.
--
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government
-- Tacit, 56-117 AD
Re:Simple (Score:3, Interesting)
old doctors and old lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't hear as much about age discrimination, but I figure it's real in Engineering (illegality notwithstanding) more so than other professions. Given this, it makes more sense to invest the extra time and money of post-graduate education in something that'll pay back in a longer career.
Re:Because a majority of US citizens are poor? (Score:2, Interesting)
Problem is he is right, in electronics which is my field China is far ahead of us, he was just saying that we are ussually kind of confident that China will not be able to overtake us wrt software, but we shouldnt be so smug about it cause during his previous visit to China etc. etc. etc
you get the general idea right. Interestingly where are you from ?
Re:90% of those who apply are probably from India. (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I think the reason a lot of us avoid going to school for additional degrees is because of the substantial debt we accrue while in college. I, for one, am going to be in the hole 17k when I'm finished.
How do the foreign students pay for their schooling?
Re:That tag... (Score:3, Interesting)
And since Slashdot skews American...
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually India has 1.1 billion and China has 1.3 billion and the US 0.3 billion.
Consider that many of the best grad schools are in America--plenty of Indians and Chinese come to America for grad school
I would hotly contest your claim that most of the best grad schools are in the US - many of the world rankings I've seen rely heavily on budget size and it is ridiculous to think that, for example, Canadian grad programs have all spontaneously improved this year because the Canadian dollar is worth a lot more.
I suspect the real reason they are popular with Indians and Chinese are two-fold. First the US is a lot more affordable than Europe and secondly if you are going to be in business and likely have to trade with the US it helps to know about its society.
Re:More right wing Ostriching (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason why more Indian and Chinese students go to grad school is fairly simple, at least in any tech-related (IT, Biotech, etc.): fewer Americans are taking up those majors to begin with, because they know these jobs are going overseas.
Re:Easy answer (Score:1, Interesting)
PhDs in other fields however, and that's a whole different story. Then again, the imbalance isn't really there in other fields. You get into math and physics, and it's exactly what you would expect to see for the world's best universities. Pretty good representation from a significant number of groups, waspy "american" types are not very rare. Second and third generation americans are also quite common. My experience anyway.
Economics. (Score:5, Interesting)
For most students who intend to enter the commercial sector, getting the "one up" degree just doesn't pay that well. Speaking about engineering specifically:
1. Graduate with a BS/BA. Get a job, work for two years, and you'll be on just about even ground (salary-wise) with the guy who got his MS/MA. And you won't have picked up the debt/costs associated with getting the MS/MA. I ran the numbers for me, and the payback on this is about 6-7 years.
2. Graduate with an MS/MA. Get a job, work for three years, and you'll be on even ground -- or often better -- with the guy who got his PhD. And you won't have picked up the debt/costs associated with the MS/MA. I ran the numbers for me, and the payback on this is about 15-20 years.
And the kicker: Anyone smart enough to get a graduate degree can run those numbers. This doesn't even include the opportunity cost of delaying starting a family while you pursue the degree.
However, foreign students have an added sweetener in the pot: it's easier to stay in America to make the big bucks if you have a graduate degree. And this tips the equation significantly.
I just want to puke whenever I hear US firms bitching and moaning about how there aren't enough American graduate scientists/engineers. It's simple economics, you bunch of whining douche bags. You understand them, because when demand for your products goes up, you're quite happy to raise the price. But when the shoe is on the other foot? You whine, bitch and moan about how employment costs are out of hand.
Again, it's simple economics, supply and demand. Supply short? Pay more. If it doesn't, don't be surprised when supply stays low.
Re:and? (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically everywhere. In San Francisisco it wouldnt even be considered middle class at all. Maybe in Kentucky $60k/yr is a decent family income, but you would be hard pressed to afford a $200k house on that.
$60k/yr is definetly middle class, but just barely. I think it is around $45k-$55k in most areas that you move out of the working class and into the middle class.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps this is speculation (Score:3, Interesting)
But when I went to college to be an engineer it was preceded by decades of emphasis on science. The Apollo missions where number one on the TV. And it was considered cool to be an engineer. You could actually get dates!
Fast forward to my teenage kids. Being someone which technical knowledge about anything gets you labeled a Nerd and Ghey. This negative peer pressure, combined with the complete lack of any emphasis on people actually learning technology does little to encourage students to even pursue a BS degree in Engineering or any of the Sciences (except for psychology which might be considered a soft science).
There's no emphasis for it. Look at computers and computer technology. People don't have any clue what anything actually does and they have an absolute aversion towards learning about it. Why? Because Marketing has told them it's all so difficult and dangerous that you should buy their product to take care of all your computer needs. Marketing leads to fear and fear leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side.
Re:It's a numbers game (Score:2, Interesting)
Given that I share the same view, that is that the rapid development is causing huge rifts in china - and that china seems to act solely on stability when it comes to their politics towards the world at large (the expanse in their weapon program seems to be to further strengthen them by creating dependencies, and to furtherance their own military program).
So to me China seem to be searching for stability for themselves in their foreign affairs - i.e. nor for anyone else unless they in turn gain from it.
Now I'm only giving you my opinion, for since you seems to think it rubbish I would like to know why; given that you so aptly voiced your opinion I would like to see the logic behind it to if need to be change mine.
Now of course anyone that believes that China, or anyone else, state or person, acts out based solely on ONE desire is of course a fool, but I do believe that I can't with my current experience/knowledge find a better grouping then "selfish stability" ~ and I would of course love to negotiate this and further refine/change it - but for that I need more then a empty opinion that could be an unicorn in disguise.
Disclaimer: I'm humbly asking for forgiveness for my bad English, but hope that I have made myself understood.
Re:and? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:and? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, no. If you want that rate, you need a 20% down payment. This means $47.5k up front for a loan of $190k (home price of 237,500).
Less than 20% down means you'll need to get a HELOC in order to get a 20% down payment, and rates on HELOCs are typically around 3% higher; or you'll need to get PMI, which costs a couple hundred (or more) bucks a month.
Now, to fit this in against a person making $60,000 a year...
Most mortgage companies will only issue a loan at their best rate (i.e., the rate quoted on the Quicken website) if their monthly PITI is less than 25% of the borrower's net monthly income. So, using the $1169/mo figure for mortgage, and assuming NO income taxes are paid by the borrower, their property taxes and insurance (or HELOC payment) must be less than $324 a month. Good luck with that.
In short, you cannot EVER use those teaser interest rates to estimate affordability of housing.
Also, I'd like to note that in the areas where $200k will buy you a nice house, it's unlikely that a person making $60k in, say, Chicago would be able to find employment for anything close to $60k.
Re:and? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, not quite. In Alabama, which is a very nice place to live, $60k/year is damn good income. That's middle class to upper middle class living. A $200k house? That's pretty much a mansion here, or it's located on prime real estate. Most good housing in a good neighborhood is under $100k here, with plenty of decent houses available in the $40k-$50k range. A three bedroom house in a subdivision is around $130k-$140k max. Quiet, beautiful forest land is abundant and good land goes for $2500-$3000/acre.
This is just Alabama. You're forgetting about Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Iowa, Ohio, etc, etc, etc.
As a smarter American who went into law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:and? (Score:3, Interesting)
I happen to own a $190k home, and with an interest rate of 5.25% I pay $1600 a month. You are both wrong.