WC Poll: Are you in favor of racial preferences in college admissions?

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

74% of Americans are against racial preferences in college admissions. College administrators are all-in on it--creating DEI positions and departments to impose "equity" on campus, within faculty, and in the make-up of student bodies. The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear another case on this issue.

Opinion | A More Diverse America Turns Against Racial Preferences

California voters backed the 1996 ban by a 9-point margin. By 2020 the gap had widened to 14 points.

www.wsj.com

"When Proposition 16 was put on the ballot—a provision to repeal the state’s prohibition of racial preferences—Californians voted it down by a 14-point margin. Even a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for Joe Biden affirmed its opposition to racial preferences. What explained the split?

What nobody realized was that the entire country had become increasingly hostile to the use of race in such decisions. A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.

But as the public attempted to slam the door shut on racial preferences, the universities were busy trying to open it wide. The stealthy end-runs around the law gave way to support for “equity”: the desire for racial proportionality in all things—never mind that the Supreme Court has held that quotas in college admissions are unlawful. Accordingly, many colleges have begun to abandon the use of test scores in applications.

In line with this hardening of campus attitudes, increasingly powerful diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies arose to achieve these aims. Consider The University of California, Berkeley, which now has a Division of Equity and Inclusion, a title that gives it a standing on campus equivalent to its Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The university’s division has an array of highly paid managers. Eight have the title “director,” one of which is for “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” and there are several assistant vice chancellors. Similar offices abound on campuses across the country, where they are major actors in promoting all manner of progressive causes, from social justice to critical race theory and anticapitalism.

The most visible sign of DEI’s clout is its gradually seizing control of faculty appointments. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, DEI personnel prescreen applicants for all faculty positions and can throw out applications whose mandatory statements of commitment to diversity they don’t like. At Berkeley about 75% of applicants for a teaching position in life sciences were rejected in this stage during the 2018-19 academic year. The prescreening resulted in Hispanics representing 59% of the finalists, despite comprising only 14% of applicants. White applicants made up 14% of the final pool, down from their original 54%."

 

[mcmurtry66]

74% of Americans are against racial preferences in college admissions. College administrators are all-in on it--creating DEI positions and departments to impose "equity" on campus, within faculty, and in the make-up of student bodies. The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear another case on this issue.

Opinion | A More Diverse America Turns Against Racial Preferences

California voters backed the 1996 ban by a 9-point margin. By 2020 the gap had widened to 14 points.

www.wsj.com

"When Proposition 16 was put on the ballot—a provision to repeal the state’s prohibition of racial preferences—Californians voted it down by a 14-point margin. Even a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for Joe Biden affirmed its opposition to racial preferences. What explained the split?

What nobody realized was that the entire country had become increasingly hostile to the use of race in such decisions. A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.

But as the public attempted to slam the door shut on racial preferences, the universities were busy trying to open it wide. The stealthy end-runs around the law gave way to support for “equity”: the desire for racial proportionality in all things—never mind that the Supreme Court has held that quotas in college admissions are unlawful. Accordingly, many colleges have begun to abandon the use of test scores in applications.

In line with this hardening of campus attitudes, increasingly powerful diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies arose to achieve these aims. Consider The University of California, Berkeley, which now has a Division of Equity and Inclusion, a title that gives it a standing on campus equivalent to its Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The university’s division has an array of highly paid managers. Eight have the title “director,” one of which is for “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” and there are several assistant vice chancellors. Similar offices abound on campuses across the country, where they are major actors in promoting all manner of progressive causes, from social justice to critical race theory and anticapitalism.

The most visible sign of DEI’s clout is its gradually seizing control of faculty appointments. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, DEI personnel prescreen applicants for all faculty positions and can throw out applications whose mandatory statements of commitment to diversity they don’t like. At Berkeley about 75% of applicants for a teaching position in life sciences were rejected in this stage during the 2018-19 academic year. The prescreening resulted in Hispanics representing 59% of the finalists, despite comprising only 14% of applicants. White applicants made up 14% of the final pool, down from their original 54%."

Banana slugs

 

[larsIU]

Banana slugs

Every time I see UC Santa Cruz i think of this:

 

[larsIU]

74% of Americans are against racial preferences in college admissions. College administrators are all-in on it--creating DEI positions and departments to impose "equity" on campus, within faculty, and in the make-up of student bodies. The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear another case on this issue.

Opinion | A More Diverse America Turns Against Racial Preferences

California voters backed the 1996 ban by a 9-point margin. By 2020 the gap had widened to 14 points.

www.wsj.com

"When Proposition 16 was put on the ballot—a provision to repeal the state’s prohibition of racial preferences—Californians voted it down by a 14-point margin. Even a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for Joe Biden affirmed its opposition to racial preferences. What explained the split?

What nobody realized was that the entire country had become increasingly hostile to the use of race in such decisions. A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.

But as the public attempted to slam the door shut on racial preferences, the universities were busy trying to open it wide. The stealthy end-runs around the law gave way to support for “equity”: the desire for racial proportionality in all things—never mind that the Supreme Court has held that quotas in college admissions are unlawful. Accordingly, many colleges have begun to abandon the use of test scores in applications.

In line with this hardening of campus attitudes, increasingly powerful diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies arose to achieve these aims. Consider The University of California, Berkeley, which now has a Division of Equity and Inclusion, a title that gives it a standing on campus equivalent to its Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The university’s division has an array of highly paid managers. Eight have the title “director,” one of which is for “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” and there are several assistant vice chancellors. Similar offices abound on campuses across the country, where they are major actors in promoting all manner of progressive causes, from social justice to critical race theory and anticapitalism.

The most visible sign of DEI’s clout is its gradually seizing control of faculty appointments. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, DEI personnel prescreen applicants for all faculty positions and can throw out applications whose mandatory statements of commitment to diversity they don’t like. At Berkeley about 75% of applicants for a teaching position in life sciences were rejected in this stage during the 2018-19 academic year. The prescreening resulted in Hispanics representing 59% of the finalists, despite comprising only 14% of applicants. White applicants made up 14% of the final pool, down from their original 54%."

I do not agree with racial preferences in admissions. If anything, I would focus on socio economic barriers to entry. I do believe the clock is about to strike on DEI in a way which will reduce its status to something akin to guidance counselors. Not gone, and not without power, but not in a decision making role.

 

[UncleMark]

I do not agree with racial preferences in admissions. If anything, I would focus on socio economic barriers to entry.

The vast majority of all programs that give preferences to or target race could be changed to focus on socio-economic status and accomplish much of the same thing.

 

[larsIU]

The vast majority of all programs that give preferences to or target race could be changed to focus on socio-economic status and accomplish much of the same thing.

And, most importantly apparently, be INCLUSIVE.

Hugz

 

[UncleMark]

And, most importantly apparently, be INCLUSIVE.

Hugz

Exactly. The poor white trash in my trailer park would be able to benefit as much as the targeted blacks in Crestmont. Takes the racial animosity out of the equation.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Exactly. The poor white trash in my trailer park would be able to benefit as much as the targeted blacks in Crestmont. Takes the racial animosity out of the equation.

I thought you live next to a Gay, a lesbian and an illegal alien named Jesus?

 

[IUCrazy2]

The vast majority of all programs that give preferences to or target race could be changed to focus on socio-economic status and accomplish much of the same thing.

And they wouldn't be racist to boot. Win, win.

 

[BigDoggyDogDude]

I voted yes. I am in favor of white applicants receiving preferential treatment in the admissions process. That way we have more white students in college than minorities.

I see no problem with my point of view.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I voted yes. I am in favor of white applicants receiving preferential treatment in the admissions process. That way we have more white students in college than minorities.

I see no problem with my point of view.

Hey Chihuahua, Change your name to Saran Wrap please.

 

[outside shooter]

It's not as simple as a yes/no. If you rely at all on test scores, then you do need to take into account socioeconomic disparities that affect test scores. But most colleges are going away from SAT/ACT, and if so, I think they can be color-blind but pay more attention to economic rather than racial factors.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

74% of Americans are against racial preferences in college admissions. College administrators are all-in on it--creating DEI positions and departments to impose "equity" on campus, within faculty, and in the make-up of student bodies. The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear another case on this issue.

Opinion | A More Diverse America Turns Against Racial Preferences

California voters backed the 1996 ban by a 9-point margin. By 2020 the gap had widened to 14 points.

www.wsj.com

"When Proposition 16 was put on the ballot—a provision to repeal the state’s prohibition of racial preferences—Californians voted it down by a 14-point margin. Even a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for Joe Biden affirmed its opposition to racial preferences. What explained the split?

What nobody realized was that the entire country had become increasingly hostile to the use of race in such decisions. A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.

But as the public attempted to slam the door shut on racial preferences, the universities were busy trying to open it wide. The stealthy end-runs around the law gave way to support for “equity”: the desire for racial proportionality in all things—never mind that the Supreme Court has held that quotas in college admissions are unlawful. Accordingly, many colleges have begun to abandon the use of test scores in applications.

In line with this hardening of campus attitudes, increasingly powerful diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies arose to achieve these aims. Consider The University of California, Berkeley, which now has a Division of Equity and Inclusion, a title that gives it a standing on campus equivalent to its Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The university’s division has an array of highly paid managers. Eight have the title “director,” one of which is for “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” and there are several assistant vice chancellors. Similar offices abound on campuses across the country, where they are major actors in promoting all manner of progressive causes, from social justice to critical race theory and anticapitalism.

The most visible sign of DEI’s clout is its gradually seizing control of faculty appointments. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, DEI personnel prescreen applicants for all faculty positions and can throw out applications whose mandatory statements of commitment to diversity they don’t like. At Berkeley about 75% of applicants for a teaching position in life sciences were rejected in this stage during the 2018-19 academic year. The prescreening resulted in Hispanics representing 59% of the finalists, despite comprising only 14% of applicants. White applicants made up 14% of the final pool, down from their original 54%."

I’m a No but there are shades of gray. I don’t care much if some puny and overpriced liberal arts college wants to be Woke. I do care about professional programs like med school or law school. Standards need to be standards. There are scientifically curated admission tests designed to screen out potentially unsuccessful students and those shouldn’t be weighted less.

 

[Lucy01]

Exactly. The poor white trash in my trailer park would be able to benefit as much as the targeted blacks in Crestmont. Takes the racial animosity out of the equation.

You mean that I might have a chance to benefit?

 

[Crayfish57]

You mean that I might have a chance to benefit?

Nah, you know people like us are that last ones to ever benefit

 

[IUclover]

I’m pretty sure admissions has a quota for in-state county schools too. What do y’all think about that?

 

[IUclover]

Banana slugs

Awesome campus too.

 

[sglowrider]

Is There a Bias Against Asian College Applicants?​

Between 2000 and 2015, the Asian population in America grew 72%, and yet by 2021, Asians still comprise only 5.6% of the total U.S. population. However, if you examine many of the finest universities in the country, you will see that the undergraduate Asian representation on campus is generally 4-6 times their percentage of the population as a whole. Let’s take a quick look at some of those numbers:

• Caltech: 37%
• UC Berkeley: 35%
• Carnegie Mellon: 31%
• MIT: 30%
• UCLA: 28%
• Johns Hopkins: 27%
• Rice: 26%
• Penn: 25%
• Stanford: 23%
• Princeton: 22%
• Columbia: 21%
• Duke: 21%
• Emory: 21%
• Harvard: 21%

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/asian-bias-college-admission/

One well-known 2005 study found that if race were eliminated as a consideration in the admissions process (there was no affirmative action), Asian students would be the biggest beneficiaries, experiencing an acceptance rate 6 points higher across elite universities. No other group was negatively impacted anywhere close to this extent.

Another study of Harvard’s admissions practices between 2000 and 2017, found that the acceptance rate for Asian-American students was 8.1% compared to a 11.1% figure for white applicants. While we’re on the subject of Harvard…

What the Harvard court case tells us about implicit bias​

Recently, the U.S. court system weighed in on bias against Asian-American students at Harvard. While the school ultimately won the case, much evidence was revealed as to how white students were routinely given superior ratings by Harvard admissions officers in subjective categories like “positive personality,” being “widely-respected,” as well as areas such as likeability, courageousness, and even kindness

Princeton inquiry​

As part of a probe by the Department of Education, a number of notes made by Princeton admissions officers regarding Asian applicants were made public. Among the more telling quotes were that Asian applicants had “very familiar profiles” and that some Asian individuals were referred to as “standard premeds” and “difficult to pluck out”.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Is There a Bias Against Asian College Applicants?​

Between 2000 and 2015, the Asian population in America grew 72%, and yet by 2021, Asians still comprise only 5.6% of the total U.S. population. However, if you examine many of the finest universities in the country, you will see that the undergraduate Asian representation on campus is generally 4-6 times their percentage of the population as a whole. Let’s take a quick look at some of those numbers:

• Caltech: 37%
• UC Berkeley: 35%
• Carnegie Mellon: 31%
• MIT: 30%
• UCLA: 28%
• Johns Hopkins: 27%
• Rice: 26%
• Penn: 25%
• Stanford: 23%
• Princeton: 22%
• Columbia: 21%
• Duke: 21%
• Emory: 21%
• Harvard: 21%

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/asian-bias-college-admission/

Another study of Harvard’s admissions practices between 2000 and 2017, found that the acceptance rate for Asian-American students was 8.1% compared to a 11.1% figure for white applicants. While we’re on the subject of Harvard…

What the Harvard court case tells us about implicit bias​

Recently, the U.S. court system weighed in on bias against Asian-American students at Harvard. While the school ultimately won the case, much evidence was revealed as to how white students were routinely given superior ratings by Harvard admissions officers in subjective categories like “positive personality,” being “widely-respected,” as well as areas such as likeability, courageousness, and even kindness

Princeton inquiry​

As part of a probe by the Department of Education, a number of notes made by Princeton admissions officers regarding Asian applicants were made public. Among the more telling quotes were that Asian applicants had “very familiar profiles” and that some Asian individuals were referred to as “standard premeds” and “difficult to pluck out”.

Asians aren’t diversity dude. That’s how merica thinks.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Asians aren’t diversity dude. That’s how merica thinks.

Alas, they’ve been grouped into “Whiteness.”

 

[sglowrider]

Alas, they’ve been grouped into “Whiteness.”

I was ahead of my time. My peeps have always accused me of being a banana.

 

[larsIU]

I was ahead of my time. My peeps have always accused me of being a banana.

I thought that was a twinkie.

Oh wait, that's something entirely different. Never mind.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I do not agree with racial preferences in admissions. If anything, I would focus on socio economic barriers to entry. I do believe the clock is about to strike on DEI in a way which will reduce its status to something akin to guidance counselors. Not gone, and not without power, but not in a decision making role.

You can’t impose racial preferences at the college admission level and hope to make meaningful social changes. It’s too late for most underprivileged kids. I think you need to start with kindergarten and push for change throughout the k-12 system. But too much politics and power struggles won’t allow change. Any important changes will take time.

Much of this DEI stuff is vacuous window dressing. It’s a fad. It’s one institution talking to other elite institutions. Its mostly run by women who are more influenced by trends and style. (A sexist would say!). The primary beneficiaries are women, especially women of color. Toxic femininity. The position of African American boys and men in any part of society or government is not improving at the pace as African American women.

 

[larsIU]

You can’t impose racial preferences at the college admission level and hope to make meaningful social changes. It’s too late for most underprivileged kids. I think you need to start with kindergarten and push for change throughout the k-12 system. But too much politics and power struggles won’t allow change. Any important changes will take time.

We suck so much at doing anything which will require time. Elections every 2 years for reps, 4 for pres, 6 for Senate.

china doesn't have this problem.

We just volley the policy back and forth, back and forth, without ever really solving the problem.

Honest question. Most Americans love SS and Medicare. We can bitch about their efficiency, waste, etc. but they are wildly popular on both sides of the political divide. Do you think there is any way, in our current political climate, those would ever be passed by Congress today?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We suck so much at doing anything which will require time. Elections every 2 years for reps, 4 for pres, 6 for Senate.

china doesn't have this problem.

We just volley the policy back and forth, back and forth, without ever really solving the problem.

Honest question. Most Americans love SS and Medicare. We can bitch about their efficiency, waste, etc. but they are wildly popular on both sides of the political divide. Do you think there is any way, in our current political climate, those would ever be passed by Congress today?

No. Not because of the nature of SS or Medicare. Rather it is because congress has become useless. Everything is cram-down legislation, nothing is the result of, well, politics. No negotiating and no compromising. Look how health care reform turned out. It’s essentially useless because each side thought they had all the answers.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Alas, they’ve been grouped into “Whiteness.”

I believe the correct term is “white adjacent”, or “having access to whiteness”.

 

[toastedbread]

74% of Americans are against racial preferences in college admissions. College administrators are all-in on it--creating DEI positions and departments to impose "equity" on campus, within faculty, and in the make-up of student bodies. The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear another case on this issue.

Opinion | A More Diverse America Turns Against Racial Preferences

California voters backed the 1996 ban by a 9-point margin. By 2020 the gap had widened to 14 points.

www.wsj.com

"When Proposition 16 was put on the ballot—a provision to repeal the state’s prohibition of racial preferences—Californians voted it down by a 14-point margin. Even a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for Joe Biden affirmed its opposition to racial preferences. What explained the split?

What nobody realized was that the entire country had become increasingly hostile to the use of race in such decisions. A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.

But as the public attempted to slam the door shut on racial preferences, the universities were busy trying to open it wide. The stealthy end-runs around the law gave way to support for “equity”: the desire for racial proportionality in all things—never mind that the Supreme Court has held that quotas in college admissions are unlawful. Accordingly, many colleges have begun to abandon the use of test scores in applications.

In line with this hardening of campus attitudes, increasingly powerful diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies arose to achieve these aims. Consider The University of California, Berkeley, which now has a Division of Equity and Inclusion, a title that gives it a standing on campus equivalent to its Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The university’s division has an array of highly paid managers. Eight have the title “director,” one of which is for “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” and there are several assistant vice chancellors. Similar offices abound on campuses across the country, where they are major actors in promoting all manner of progressive causes, from social justice to critical race theory and anticapitalism.

The most visible sign of DEI’s clout is its gradually seizing control of faculty appointments. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, DEI personnel prescreen applicants for all faculty positions and can throw out applications whose mandatory statements of commitment to diversity they don’t like. At Berkeley about 75% of applicants for a teaching position in life sciences were rejected in this stage during the 2018-19 academic year. The prescreening resulted in Hispanics representing 59% of the finalists, despite comprising only 14% of applicants. White applicants made up 14% of the final pool, down from their original 54%."

No. As a multi-time victim of discrimination I am resolutely opposed to all manner of discrimination on account of race or nationality. No one chooses where they are born or their skin color. Judge each on their merit.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

No. As a multi-time victim of discrimination I am resolutely opposed to all manner of discrimination on account of race or nationality. No one chooses where they are born or their skin color. Judge each on their merit.

Dude, meritocracy is racist.

You forget, these people are nuts.

 

[toastedbread]

Dude, meritocracy is racist.

You forget, these people are nuts.

Unfortunately, I am afraid universities are businesses now as opposed to their public missions. I'll be honest, I didn't bother to read the article as I'm not especially passionate about this topic.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Is There a Bias Against Asian College Applicants?​

Between 2000 and 2015, the Asian population in America grew 72%, and yet by 2021, Asians still comprise only 5.6% of the total U.S. population. However, if you examine many of the finest universities in the country, you will see that the undergraduate Asian representation on campus is generally 4-6 times their percentage of the population as a whole. Let’s take a quick look at some of those numbers:

• Caltech: 37%
• UC Berkeley: 35%
• Carnegie Mellon: 31%
• MIT: 30%
• UCLA: 28%
• Johns Hopkins: 27%
• Rice: 26%
• Penn: 25%
• Stanford: 23%
• Princeton: 22%
• Columbia: 21%
• Duke: 21%
• Emory: 21%
• Harvard: 21%

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/asian-bias-college-admission/

Another study of Harvard’s admissions practices between 2000 and 2017, found that the acceptance rate for Asian-American students was 8.1% compared to a 11.1% figure for white applicants. While we’re on the subject of Harvard…

What the Harvard court case tells us about implicit bias​

Recently, the U.S. court system weighed in on bias against Asian-American students at Harvard. While the school ultimately won the case, much evidence was revealed as to how white students were routinely given superior ratings by Harvard admissions officers in subjective categories like “positive personality,” being “widely-respected,” as well as areas such as likeability, courageousness, and even kindness

Princeton inquiry​

As part of a probe by the Department of Education, a number of notes made by Princeton admissions officers regarding Asian applicants were made public. Among the more telling quotes were that Asian applicants had “very familiar profiles” and that some Asian individuals were referred to as “standard premeds” and “difficult to pluck out”.

I thought schools love Asians bc they are smart but most importantly pay full tilt. Years ago my neighbor was the provost at Wash U. He told me about the $

 

[toastedbread]

I thought schools love Asians bc they are smart but most importantly pay full tilt.

This is about Asians in America. You are referring to international students?

 

[mcmurtry66]

This is about Asians in America. You are referring to international students?

Yes international

 

[toastedbread]

Yes international

I don't think public American universities should be accepting international students for baccalaureate programs with the exception of exchange programs for cross-cultural purposes. There is only a need for research programs, especially in the hard sciences at the PHD level.

 

[sglowrider]

Yes international

My BIL 'teaches' at Columbia. He said that without the Chinese kids/students, the university has had some major financial impact.

 

[sglowrider]

I believe the correct term is “white adjacent”, or “having access to whiteness”.

Sexually?

 

[sglowrider]

I don't think public American universities should be accepting international students for baccalaureate programs with the exception of exchange programs for cross-cultural purposes. There is only a need for research programs, especially in the hard sciences at the PHD level.

1,400 US-based ethnic Chinese scientists left American institutions for mainland

‘Chilling effect’ felt from Washington policies like Trump-era programme that targeted suspected theft of technical secrets and intellectual property.

www.scmp.com

 

[twenty02]

1,400 US-based ethnic Chinese scientists left American institutions for mainland

‘Chilling effect’ felt from Washington policies like Trump-era programme that targeted suspected theft of technical secrets and intellectual property.

www.scmp.com

Good. Should permanently ban all Chinese students from US Universities for the next generation. The idea of the US educating the brightest of our biggest geopolitical foe on an ongoing basis at our best research institutions is completely foolish.

They've stolen enough of our intellectual capability that they could never create within their own system, as-is. Their blockade of research regarding the Wuhan virus proved to the world what the future holds... and it we be a long, ugly cold war.

 

[sglowrider]

Good. Should permanently ban all Chinese students from US Universities for the next generation. The idea of the US educating the brightest of our biggest geopolitical foe on an ongoing basis at our best research institutions is completely foolish.

They've stolen enough of our intellectual capability that they could never create within their own system, as-is. Their blockade of research regarding the Wuhan virus proved to the world what the future holds... and it we be a long, ugly cold war.

International Students Remain A Primary Source Of U.S. Tech Talent

Without international students, America would have far fewer highly-educated people with backgrounds in science and engineering.

www.forbes.com

Maybe one out of the 8-10 PhD candidates in my BIL's computational neuroscience class maybe an American.

There has to be a cultural shift if you want to fill that gap or find ways of easing student loans?
Otherwise be prepared to fall behind in the global technology race.

 

[twenty02]

International Students Remain A Primary Source Of U.S. Tech Talent

Without international students, America would have far fewer highly-educated people with backgrounds in science and engineering.

www.forbes.com

Maybe one out of the 8-10 PhD candidates in my BIL's computational neuroscience class maybe an American.

There has to be a cultural shift if you want to fill that gap or find ways of easing student loans?
Otherwise be prepared to fall behind in the global technology race.

I didn't mention Indian students.

Fortunately most (decent) schools in the US are now teaching coding at grade school level like any other language. Most kids won't dig it, but the ones that do enjoy it will be ready.

 

[sglowrider]

I didn't mention Indian students.

Fortunately most (decent) schools in the US are now teaching coding at grade school level like any other language. Most kids won't dig it, but the ones that do enjoy it will be ready.

Indian students will do the same thing as the Chinese students in the near future.

Coding is pretty low level stuff. I maybe bias but the stuff my BIL does is at a different level. You just won't find Americans doing PhD. That's a problem.
Any change will be generational. That time gap will be disastrous for the country