GWOT --> GPC

[youthathletics]

Leaked Pentagon Memo, body counts much higher on UK, lower for Russia, not as they where expressed, top brass not being truthful.....shenanigans in play?

NYT Article via --Twitter ----> https://twitter.com/TitterDaily/status/ ... 04544?s=20

[MDlaxfan76]

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

I disagree that "outcompeting China" is our goal. And I pointed this out with the Forum's Republicans when Trump "stood up to China".

If that's our goal? Why has every POTUS for the last 20 years allowed so many Chinese student VISA's? We've got 300K Chinese students here, in our very best Universities. So either our leaders don't really want us to "outcompete China", or they are idiots. Pick one.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful

That's fine, but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

Here's my whole post, not cuts:

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

That's a tough tightrope without excessive rhetoric.

Serious actions like the Chips Act and other steps we can take to compete technologically, while continuing trade relationships that foster some mutual appreciation for the benefits of peace, as well as making sure our allies are well equipped to deal with military challenges should they arise (and deterring such likelihood) make a ton more sense. That needn't be bellicose. But real action.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful, while at the same time we can understand that Ukraine's success against Russia militarily may be the best form of deterrence to China's more 'hot' ambitions.

I don't like the hand wringing about AI as you can bet that China is doubling down as we hand wring. Sure, we should be looking hard at ethical challenges, but we should want to lead this arena, not be caught napping and kvetching.

There was an interesting piece on NPR I think about a brand new form of chip, super conductor, that will be transformative in the next decades...we should invest in leadership in this arena...and apparently there are some rare materials necessary...ok, that calls for serious industrial policy...

But back to the competition with China, we need to remember that they have a horrible demographic problem, with no clear answer...rapidly aging population. whereas, we have a cultural openness to immigration and diversity, they're all about ethnic unity and conformity...big advantages for us.

Frankly, we really don't want them to get desperate nor isolated. And we need them to develop their middle class, as all sorts of awareness of environmental damages become increasingly important as people lift their heads up...and we need them to be way more environmentally helpful...

The answer to your question is easily inferred from the bold. We want , and should want,to engage their young people, the future best and brightest and most outwardly, international looking of their population.

Competition doesn't mean "isolate them". Engagement is important to avoiding misunderstanding, leading to a 'hot' war.

I'd also note that some of those students stay in the US and eventually become US citizens, giving up Chinese citizenship. Not the majority, but a significant portion do so. Most are long term engaged in business and science internationally, only a small portion in government.

Why do super bright Chinese students and their families want to come to the US (or UK) top schools? these are very high aspiring families and rarely coming from government jobs, mostly out of business. Is it simply because those schools are among the best in the world? Sure, but these students would be accepted at the very best universities in China, which are top notch...but just as other students in the world flock to the US, an incredibly competitive process, they seek the total immersion in US culture and language, given the preeminence of our economy. They also seek to go to the top schools in the UK, because of English. Note, they already are decent to strong English speakers, but there's a big step up in understanding Western culture...and there's a very real appreciation for that exposure.

[MDlaxfan76]

To this discussion about the near 300k of Chinese students in US universities, which is combined graduate and undergraduate, they also have 44.3 million people in college in China.

There are 14.8 million students in the US, including international students from all over the world competing to get in.

The error in all this logic about keeping Chinese students out is that our schools are a richer, more exciting, intellectual and cultural experience for our students with them than without them.

We benefit from their contributions, and even more importantly, there are relationships built between young Americans and young Chinese that make the likelihood of understanding one another far more likely over the next decades than if they had been isolated.

There are typically more than 20,000 American students studying in Chinese universities (graduate schools are particularly good), the largest international group there are South Koreans with a little over 50,000.

It is fair to say that there's a heck of a lot less demand for going there than here. Among other reasons, students here are free to explore diverse interests and to express themselves freely...remember being young???

Another key point, that shouldn't be the big driver, but does matter...international students are nearly always full pay, and their academic credentials typically are superior on average to the top 25% at the university to which they are accepted.

It's incredibly difficult for them to get into our top schools, which keep getting more and more selective for international students.

My son still has his hand in international college admissions, had a number of Ivy, Stanford, Duke etc acceptances this past few years, but one of his favorites was just rejected or waitlisted at 20+ schools, only acceptance was USC, which had an overall acceptance rate of 6% this year. This girl got a 1550 as a freshman in HS, wrote a series of published and successful children's books during middle school, her academic achievements in HS were off the chart, completing both IB (heavier than our AP level) and the equivalent of two more complete years of AP-level courses. 5 legit internships, etc, etc. High achieving CFO dad of major corporation out of Singapore, but the artsy school she attended (she's very creative) hasn't previously placed students in Ivies....she's going to go to top Singapore university (which is top 25 in world) and apply again in US as a first year next year.

[PizzaSnake]

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

I disagree that "outcompeting China" is our goal. And I pointed this out with the Forum's Republicans when Trump "stood up to China".

If that's our goal? Why has every POTUS for the last 20 years allowed so many Chinese student VISA's? We've got 300K Chinese students here, in our very best Universities. So either our leaders don't really want us to "outcompete China", or they are idiots. Pick one.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful

That's fine, but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

Here's my whole post, not cuts:

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

That's a tough tightrope without excessive rhetoric.

Serious actions like the Chips Act and other steps we can take to compete technologically, while continuing trade relationships that foster some mutual appreciation for the benefits of peace, as well as making sure our allies are well equipped to deal with military challenges should they arise (and deterring such likelihood) make a ton more sense. That needn't be bellicose. But real action.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful, while at the same time we can understand that Ukraine's success against Russia militarily may be the best form of deterrence to China's more 'hot' ambitions.

I don't like the hand wringing about AI as you can bet that China is doubling down as we hand wring. Sure, we should be looking hard at ethical challenges, but we should want to lead this arena, not be caught napping and kvetching.

There was an interesting piece on NPR I think about a brand new form of chip, super conductor, that will be transformative in the next decades...we should invest in leadership in this arena...and apparently there are some rare materials necessary...ok, that calls for serious industrial policy...

But back to the competition with China, we need to remember that they have a horrible demographic problem, with no clear answer...rapidly aging population. whereas, we have a cultural openness to immigration and diversity, they're all about ethnic unity and conformity...big advantages for us.

Frankly, we really don't want them to get desperate nor isolated. And we need them to develop their middle class, as all sorts of awareness of environmental damages become increasingly important as people lift their heads up...and we need them to be way more environmentally helpful...

The answer to your question is easily inferred from the bold. We want , and should want,to engage their young people, the future best and brightest and most outwardly, international looking of their population.

Competition doesn't mean "isolate them". Engagement is important to avoiding misunderstanding, leading to a 'hot' war.

I'd also note that some of those students stay in the US and eventually become US citizens, giving up Chinese citizenship. Not the majority, but a significant portion do so. Most are long term engaged in business and science internationally, only a small portion in government.

Why do super bright Chinese students and their families want to come to the US (or UK) top schools? these are very high aspiring families and rarely coming from government jobs, mostly out of business. Is it simply because those schools are among the best in the world? Sure, but these students would be accepted at the very best universities in China, which are top notch...but just as other students in the world flock to the US, an incredibly competitive process, they seek the total immersion in US culture and language, given the preeminence of our economy. They also seek to go to the top schools in the UK, because of English. Note, they already are decent to strong English speakers, but there's a big step up in understanding Western culture...and there's a very real appreciation for that exposure.

Hard to compete when corporate whroes continue to offshore industry (Energizer battery in Wisconsin most recent example).

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat, pendulum swing started under St.Ronnie towards unfettered capitalism is responsible for most, if not all social ills: underemployment, disintegration of civic unity and engagement, and dominance of the few via the politics of division and disunity.

Imagine if all of those smart people had spent that time and energy working towards the betterment of everyone, not just their corporate paymasters…

[PizzaSnake]

To this discussion about the near 300k of Chinese students in US universities, which is combined graduate and undergraduate, they also have 44.3 million people in college in China.

There are 14.8 million students in the US, including international students from all over the world competing to get in.

The error in all this logic about keeping Chinese students out is that our schools are a richer, more exciting, intellectual and cultural experience for our students with them than without them.

We benefit from their contributions, and even more importantly, there are relationships built between young Americans and young Chinese that make the likelihood of understanding one another far more likely over the next decades than if they had been isolated.

There are typically more than 20,000 American students studying in Chinese universities (graduate schools are particularly good), the largest international group there are South Koreans with a little over 50,000.

It is fair to say that there's a heck of a lot less demand for going there than here. Among other reasons, students here are free to explore diverse interests and to express themselves freely...remember being young???

“We benefit from their contributions”

Go to CiteSeer and check the names on a few of the technical papers. Same for patent grants in STEM subjects.

A lot of post-colonial IP sharecropping going on…

[MDlaxfan76]

To this discussion about the near 300k of Chinese students in US universities, which is combined graduate and undergraduate, they also have 44.3 million people in college in China.

There are 14.8 million students in the US, including international students from all over the world competing to get in.

The error in all this logic about keeping Chinese students out is that our schools are a richer, more exciting, intellectual and cultural experience for our students with them than without them.

We benefit from their contributions, and even more importantly, there are relationships built between young Americans and young Chinese that make the likelihood of understanding one another far more likely over the next decades than if they had been isolated.

There are typically more than 20,000 American students studying in Chinese universities (graduate schools are particularly good), the largest international group there are South Koreans with a little over 50,000.

It is fair to say that there's a heck of a lot less demand for going there than here. Among other reasons, students here are free to explore diverse interests and to express themselves freely...remember being young???

“We benefit from their contributions”

Go to CiteSeer and check the names on a few of the technical papers. Same for patent grants in STEM subjects.

A lot of post-colonial IP sharecropping going on…

I want "my kid" to be "in the room" with the smartest, most intellectually curious and creative peer students. "Our kids" benefit from that stimulation, that competition, that collaboration.

The world is a very large place with tremendous underutilized intellectual and creative capacities...the sooner we recognize that we need to prepare our citizens to optimize their talents in a very competitive world, the better.

That can be in gene-splicing, AI or pipe welding. Be the best you can be.
Be a life long learner.
Find ways to contribute positively with the little time you have.

And recognize that there's a heck of a lot of other highly motivated talent out there...so get a hustle on.

[a fan]

You told me that you didn't think that adding bases this close to China posed a threat.

NOW you're telling me that these bases, and YOUR proposed future bases are VERY MUCH proximate to China.

Given that? These new bases you want to add is applying more localized military pressure to China. Which is WORSE than some dumb Congressman shooting off their mouth because in one instance, it's WORDS. And in the other instance, it's real military ACTION. Real sh(t. Assets closer to Taiwan, for example. My opinion, of course....but If XI isn't an idiot, he's FAR more worried about military movement in his region than he is about "losing face". Same goes for American leaders.

We square now? Or are you going to change your mind as to what adding forces in China's region means?

They don't pose a threat to China. We aren't deploying sufficient forces close enough to attack or threaten China.
They're for shortening our supply lines to our forward deployed seaborne forces which might help Taiwan defend themselves.

Come on. If they are there to help defend Taiwan.....what the heck are you talking about?

That would mean that they are OBVIOUSLY a threat to China's interests: specifically, Taiwan.

You keep telling me that I'm the one who wants to argue......yet you keep trying to gaslight me with this stuff.

OF COURSE more bases near China can easily be perceived as a threat by Chinese leaders.

There won't be B-1's or B-52's deployed to Australia or the PI, or even Japan or S Korea.
They'll deploy to an air base on US territory in Guam.
It's to be able to help Taiwan defend themselves (maybe = strategic ambiguity).
It's insufficient to threaten, attack or invade China.
It's also to resupply our naval forces in keeping open the W Pac sea lanes.

And now you're doing what you claim that I do: making "all or nothing" pronouncements.

You're now telling me that the ONLY threat to China would be the threat to invade their mainland. All or nothing.

China wouldn't see anything we do about Taiwan or any other non-mainland interest as a threat? Seriously?

Are you just having fun with me? That's fine if you are...but if you're not, it might be a good idea to stop doing the things that you claim that I do.

Because this is the second time in as many days that you've done what you claim that I do....."Monday morning QB'ing; All or nothing mentality". And then claiming that I'm doing these things because I want to argue. I think you get that I'm NOT trying to argue since you yourself are using these devices.....yes?

[MDlaxfan76]

Leaked Pentagon Memo, body counts much higher on UK, lower for Russia, not as they where expressed, top brass not being truthful.....shenanigans in play?

NYT Article via --Twitter ----> https://twitter.com/TitterDaily/status/ ... 04544?s=20

Pro-Russian shenanigans.


https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/11685818 ... -in-ukrain

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-nato-p ... cial-media

[youthathletics]

Leaked Pentagon Memo, body counts much higher on UK, lower for Russia, not as they where expressed, top brass not being truthful.....shenanigans in play?

NYT Article via --Twitter ----> https://twitter.com/TitterDaily/status/ ... 04544?s=20

Pro-Russian shenanigans.


https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/11685818 ... -in-ukrain

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-nato-p ... cial-media

Maybe someone in the administration could clear it up and prove it is Russian shenanigans. Rather than blindly listening to them tell us ‘it was altered’.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Says the guy blindly implying they're accurate.

I'll prefer to wait and see.

[youthathletics]

Says the guy blindly implying they're accurate.

I'll prefer to wait and see.

Oh, I agree. However, I also do not blindly trust those in the .gov.

[a fan]

The answer to your question is easily inferred from the bold. We want , and should want,to engage their young people, the future best and brightest and most outwardly, international looking of their population.

This is YOUR view. Not the view of your party. Or of the Dem party, for that matter...

Members of the U.S. House from both the Democratic and Republican parties voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to establish a new select committee to address the multifaceted threats that China poses to the United States.

“As Secretary of State Antony Blinken put it last year, China is the only country with the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do it,” Gallagher said.

He said the panel will expose the Chinese Communist Party’s “coordinated whole of society strategy to undermine American leadership and American sovereignty, while working on a bipartisan basis and with committees of jurisdiction to look at long overdue commonsense approaches to counter CCP aggressions.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/gop-led ... n-win.html


So we put together a Select Committee on Chinese threats....yet we allow 300K students on our home turf? That doesn't comport.

Competition doesn't mean "isolate them". Engagement is important to avoiding misunderstanding, leading to a 'hot' war.

Again...this is YOUR view, not the view of American leadership.

I'd also note that some of those students stay in the US and eventually become US citizens, giving up Chinese citizenship. Not the majority, but a significant portion do so. Most are long term engaged in business and science internationally, only a small portion in government.

Why do super bright Chinese students and their families want to come to the US (or UK) top schools? these are very high aspiring families and rarely coming from government jobs, mostly out of business. Is it simply because those schools are among the best in the world? Sure, but these students would be accepted at the very best universities in China, which are top notch...but just as other students in the world flock to the US, an incredibly competitive process, they seek the total immersion in US culture and language, given the preeminence of our economy. They also seek to go to the top schools in the UK, because of English. Note, they already are decent to strong English speakers, but there's a big step up in understanding Western culture...and there's a very real appreciation for that exposure.

A very benign view, and a view that I agree with, in general.

That said----have a look at these numbers for our foreign students at US Universities:

China: 300,0000

India: 200,000

S. Korea: 40,000

Etc.

100k more than the next country?

And again, we only have a couple thousand US students studying in China. Seems a tad lopsided, don't you think? Especially if cultural exchange, and increased communication between our countries is somewhere on your list of goals.

[MDlaxfan76]

Says the guy blindly implying they're accurate.

I'll prefer to wait and see.

Oh, I agree. However, I also do not blindly trust those in the .gov.

hmmm, let's just say it would require a whole lot of coordination between allied governments to have kept the secret that the Ukrainians were losing 5X as many soldiers as were the Russians...

Try the BBC, or German or French or heck Danish or Dutch or Polish or...sources if you don't want to believe the US government on this.

Russians are approaching or exceeded 300K casualties...there's a reason why they've been doing all the call-ups, recruiting from prisons, etc...or do you disbelieve that as well?

Maybe, like Trump you believe Putin over our IC?

[MDlaxfan76]

The answer to your question is easily inferred from the bold. We want , and should want,to engage their young people, the future best and brightest and most outwardly, international looking of their population.

This is YOUR view. Not the view of your party. Or of the Dem party, for that matter...

Members of the U.S. House from both the Democratic and Republican parties voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to establish a new select committee to address the multifaceted threats that China poses to the United States.

“As Secretary of State Antony Blinken put it last year, China is the only country with the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do it,” Gallagher said.

He said the panel will expose the Chinese Communist Party’s “coordinated whole of society strategy to undermine American leadership and American sovereignty, while working on a bipartisan basis and with committees of jurisdiction to look at long overdue commonsense approaches to counter CCP aggressions.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/gop-led ... n-win.html


So we put together a Select Committee on Chinese threats....yet we allow 300K students on our home turf? That doesn't comport.

Competition doesn't mean "isolate them". Engagement is important to avoiding misunderstanding, leading to a 'hot' war.

Again...this is YOUR view, not the view of American leadership.

I'd also note that some of those students stay in the US and eventually become US citizens, giving up Chinese citizenship. Not the majority, but a significant portion do so. Most are long term engaged in business and science internationally, only a small portion in government.

Why do super bright Chinese students and their families want to come to the US (or UK) top schools? these are very high aspiring families and rarely coming from government jobs, mostly out of business. Is it simply because those schools are among the best in the world? Sure, but these students would be accepted at the very best universities in China, which are top notch...but just as other students in the world flock to the US, an incredibly competitive process, they seek the total immersion in US culture and language, given the preeminence of our economy. They also seek to go to the top schools in the UK, because of English. Note, they already are decent to strong English speakers, but there's a big step up in understanding Western culture...and there's a very real appreciation for that exposure.

A very benign view, and a view that I agree with, in general.

That said----have a look at these numbers for our foreign students at US Universities:

China: 300,0000

India: 200,000

S. Korea: 40,000

Etc.

100k more than the next country?

And again, we only have a couple thousand US students studying in China. Seems a tad lopsided, don't you think? Especially if cultural exchange, and increased communication between our countries is somewhere on your list of goals.

On average, 20,000 Americans have been studying in Chinese universities. My son considered doing a business school program there before Covid hit. Excellent program, international, so in English.

But going undergrad there is way less attractive to international students than going to a western university, English language...as I explained...amply. Yet you cut.

Why is China larger than India? Because though close in population size (and 4X of US), they have a GDP 4X of India. There are a heck of a lot more, extremely highly qualified, well prepared, brilliant Chinese applicants who can pay full boat than there are from India. Yet, only 50% more accepted. It's harder, all else equal, for a Chinese applicant than an Indian one. And super hard versus an American one.

I agree, both parties are making all sorts of bellicose rhetorical statements, some of which, like Blinken's, are accurate. And those who understand that the CCCP is a serious issue are absolutely right to be concerned.

But we're talking about ways to address those concerns which make the most sense...and that's not determined by whether one or both political parties agree with me. Yes, it's my opinion.

There are serious ways to address the reality of China's rise, but IMO, isolating their students from American students, those seeking international exposure, is a really dumb response.

Want to win the long term battle for the hearts and minds of people around the world? Do so through a more attractive ideology and proven, sustained success...Our freedoms and encouragement of creativity, our openness to diversity, are tremendous assets compared to the CCCP's and any other authoritarian regime for that matter. And demographics are destiny with our welcoming of immigration a huge benefit to our ongoing youth and vitality.

[a fan]

Why is China larger than India? Because though close in population size (and 4X of US), they have a GDP 4X of India. There are a heck of a lot more, extremely highly qualified, well prepared, brilliant Chinese applicants who can pay full boat than there are from India. Yet, only 50% more accepted. It's harder, all else equal, for a Chinese applicant than an Indian one. And super hard versus an American one.

China is larger than India because we allow it, MDLax. Visa's don't fall from the sky.....this is planned.

My point is: do we REALLY need to allow 300K students into our best universities? Seems to me that we ought to at least think about what we're doing on this front.

We can accomplish your goals with 100K students. I'd rather give the other 200K work visas to desperately needed seasonal workers.

Edit to add, since I don't think I conveyed this: real tip of the hat to you on your views on the subject. Outcompete them using openness. Good stuff, MDlax....

[youthathletics]

Why is China larger than India? Because though close in population size (and 4X of US), they have a GDP 4X of India. There are a heck of a lot more, extremely highly qualified, well prepared, brilliant Chinese applicants who can pay full boat than there are from India. Yet, only 50% more accepted. It's harder, all else equal, for a Chinese applicant than an Indian one. And super hard versus an American one.

China is larger than India because we allow it, MDLax. Visa's don't fall from the sky.....this is planned.

My point is: do we REALLY need to allow 300K students into our best universities? Seems to me that we ought to at least think about what we're doing on this front.

We can accomplish your goals with 100K students. I'd rather give the other 200K work visas to desperately needed seasonal workers.

Yep.....pay full boat and make considerable contributions, seen it first hand at a small private school and heard stories from a professor at UMD Clark School of Engineering. . #FollowTheMoney

[MDlaxfan76]

Why is China larger than India? Because though close in population size (and 4X of US), they have a GDP 4X of India. There are a heck of a lot more, extremely highly qualified, well prepared, brilliant Chinese applicants who can pay full boat than there are from India. Yet, only 50% more accepted. It's harder, all else equal, for a Chinese applicant than an Indian one. And super hard versus an American one.

China is larger than India because we allow it, MDLax. Visa's don't fall from the sky.....this is planned.

Nope, not the way you imply. There are no quotas on student visas by country nor overall. All qualified get a visa. To be qualified, you need to be admitted. The # 1 way you get denied is to say on your application or in your interview (required) that you plan to stay in the US. (More on that dumb concept later).

That doesn't mean that you can get a student visa to study in any nuclear, quantum/super computing, defense related or adjacent field; that's near impossible and totally off limits at the Phd level. The top 50 US medical schools have a total of less than 100 foreign students combined, and these are typically only from very small, poor countries, with the students highly likely to be the ones who will actually run the health system in that country when they return. None from large developed countries.

So, these ARE restricted, but not for general undergraduate degrees...and many master's programs would not even exist if it weren't for the full pay foreign students. Heck, many US public undergraduate schools would close down (or taxes and tuition on American students drastically raised) if there weren't foreign full pay. University of Illinois took out an insurance policy when the pandemic hit on their next few year's foreign admissions as they couldn't afford to not have them...

My point is: do we REALLY need to allow 300K students into our best universities? Seems to me that we ought to at least think about what we're doing on this front.

Of course we should "think", but our "best universities" depend upon these full-pay students...don't like rising tuitions? Get a load of what they'd be otherwise. Let me take exception with myself re top private universities with enormous endowments. These private institutions make their own calls as to why they want the brightest foreign students to attend, now even going need-blind so as to encourage the brightest regardless of family wealth...obviously, these private institutions think their overall student experience is enriched by the foreign students. And our public universities would be crushed without them. But, hey, mebbe that's ok...

Now, if you want to "think", then let's examine the policy of sending kids back home after they've kicked butt in the classroom here and would really like to stay...we require that a large company sponsor them (small won't bother with the bureaucracy and cost) such that they are essentially indentured to them for the next 5-8 years until they might get a green card. Where the student visa program is very much a merit-based program, and these indentured are somewhat so, most of our immigration policy gives no weight to the potential lifetime contributions of the world's smartest kids...and their kids.

Contrast this with China which has an entirely merit-based work visa program, with points for level of academic achievement, points for prestige of school, points for Chinese language proficiency, etc, etc...with virtually no hope of citizenship. And the only way to have extended residency is to be heavily invested in China...

While it would tick off our allies and potential allies if we were to openly declare a merit based immigration system, trying to get and keep the brightest minds from all over the world, a brain-drain, it's what we should actually tilt towards...but don't. Even so, we attract many of these folks who overcome the hurdles in order to become US citizens...

We can accomplish your goals with 100K students. I'd rather give the other 200K work visas to desperately needed seasonal workers.

That's a baloney argument, as whether we do enough "seasonal visas" has nothing at all to do with how many student visas are in place each year or overall. Go ahead and do more seasonal, I'm all for it. Don't confuse the issues.

[MDlaxfan76]

Why is China larger than India? Because though close in population size (and 4X of US), they have a GDP 4X of India. There are a heck of a lot more, extremely highly qualified, well prepared, brilliant Chinese applicants who can pay full boat than there are from India. Yet, only 50% more accepted. It's harder, all else equal, for a Chinese applicant than an Indian one. And super hard versus an American one.

China is larger than India because we allow it, MDLax. Visa's don't fall from the sky.....this is planned.

My point is: do we REALLY need to allow 300K students into our best universities? Seems to me that we ought to at least think about what we're doing on this front.

We can accomplish your goals with 100K students. I'd rather give the other 200K work visas to desperately needed seasonal workers.

Yep.....pay full boat and make considerable contributions, seen it first hand at a small private school and heard stories from a professor at UMD Clark School of Engineering. . #FollowTheMoney

Absolutely. Clark might not be able to exist all without them, certainly wouldn't be able to have the full set of offerings.

I see this in the Hopkins master's programs.

[old salt]

You told me that you didn't think that adding bases this close to China posed a threat.

NOW you're telling me that these bases, and YOUR proposed future bases are VERY MUCH proximate to China.

Given that? These new bases you want to add is applying more localized military pressure to China. Which is WORSE than some dumb Congressman shooting off their mouth because in one instance, it's WORDS. And in the other instance, it's real military ACTION. Real sh(t. Assets closer to Taiwan, for example. My opinion, of course....but If XI isn't an idiot, he's FAR more worried about military movement in his region than he is about "losing face". Same goes for American leaders.

We square now? Or are you going to change your mind as to what adding forces in China's region means?

They don't pose a threat to China. We aren't deploying sufficient forces close enough to attack or threaten China.
They're for shortening our supply lines to our forward deployed seaborne forces which might help Taiwan defend themselves.

Come on. If they are there to help defend Taiwan.....what the heck are you talking about?

That would mean that they are OBVIOUSLY a threat to China's interests: specifically, Taiwan.

You keep telling me that I'm the one who wants to argue......yet you keep trying to gaslight me with this stuff.

OF COURSE more bases near China can easily be perceived as a threat by Chinese leaders.

There won't be B-1's or B-52's deployed to Australia or the PI, or even Japan or S Korea.
They'll deploy to an air base on US territory in Guam.
It's to be able to help Taiwan defend themselves (maybe = strategic ambiguity).
It's insufficient to threaten, attack or invade China.
It's also to resupply our naval forces in keeping open the W Pac sea lanes.

And now you're doing what you claim that I do: making "all or nothing" pronouncements.

You're now telling me that the ONLY threat to China would be the threat to invade their mainland. All or nothing.

China wouldn't see anything we do about Taiwan or any other non-mainland interest as a threat? Seriously?

Are you just having fun with me? That's fine if you are...but if you're not, it might be a good idea to stop doing the things that you claim that I do.

Because this is the second time in as many days that you've done what you claim that I do....."Monday morning QB'ing; All or nothing mentality". And then claiming that I'm doing these things because I want to argue. I think you get that I'm NOT trying to argue since you yourself are using these devices.....yes?

In your one size fits all world, nuance, & the details which support it, are dismissed as gaslighting, ...when it runs counter to your opinion.

Now you're moving the goal posts & redefining our military "threat" to China, not as the threat of attack, invasion, or even armed conflict, but as a "threat to their interests" by our mere presence. Expelling Chinese students from our colleges is also a threat to their interests. How far shall we move the goal posts ?

Our joint presence on the military bases of regional allies can be justified solely on the basis of the joint defense of their territory. That's not a threat to China unless we deploy forces there like bombers or missiles capable of reaching China. I'm referring to the ability to inflict physical damage to Chinese territory or citizens or incursions by our warships into their territorial waters.

Believe me, this "discussion" is not fun for me.
It's just more nuisance, hectoring, harassment & quibbling over inconsequential terminology..
I'm climbing out of this rabbit hole.

[a fan]

Why is China larger than India? Because though close in population size (and 4X of US), they have a GDP 4X of India. There are a heck of a lot more, extremely highly qualified, well prepared, brilliant Chinese applicants who can pay full boat than there are from India. Yet, only 50% more accepted. It's harder, all else equal, for a Chinese applicant than an Indian one. And super hard versus an American one.

China is larger than India because we allow it, MDLax. Visa's don't fall from the sky.....this is planned.

Nope, not the way you imply. There are no quotas on student visas by country nor overall. All qualified get a visa. To be qualified, you need to be admitted. The # 1 way you get denied is to say on your application or in your interview (required) that you plan to stay in the US. (More on that dumb concept later).I understand how the system works. Do you think that this system is permanent? Or do you think it fell from the sky? This is PLANNED. And can be changed at any time by the POTUS or his charges

That doesn't mean that you can get a student visa to study in any nuclear, quantum/super computing, defense related or adjacent field; that's near impossible and totally off limits at the Phd level. The top 50 US medical schools have a total of less than 100 foreign students combined, and these are typically only from very small, poor countries, with the students highly likely to be the ones who will actually run the health system in that country when they return. None from large developed countries.

So, these ARE restricted, but not for general undergraduate degrees...and many master's programs would not even exist if it weren't for the full pay foreign students. Heck, many US public undergraduate schools would close down (or taxes and tuition on American students drastically raised) if there weren't foreign full pay. University of Illinois took out an insurance policy when the pandemic hit on their next few year's foreign admissions as they couldn't afford to not have them...
That's an entirely different problem. This lack of money can also be changed by our leaders.
My point is: do we REALLY need to allow 300K students into our best universities? Seems to me that we ought to at least think about what we're doing on this front.

Of course we should "think", but our "best universities" depend upon these full-pay students...don't like rising tuitions? Get a load of what they'd be otherwise. Let me take exception with myself re top private universities with enormous endowments. These private institutions make their own calls as to why they want the brightest foreign students to attend, now even going need-blind so as to encourage the brightest regardless of family wealth...obviously, these private institutions think their overall student experience is enriched by the foreign students. And our public universities would be crushed without them. But, hey, mebbe that's ok...Our public Universities functioned just fine without them for decades. Changes occurred.

Now, if you want to "think", then let's examine the policy of sending kids back home after they've kicked butt in the classroom here and would really like to stay...we require that a large company sponsor them (small won't bother with the bureaucracy and cost) such that they are essentially indentured to them for the next 5-8 years until they might get a green card. Where the student visa program is very much a merit-based program, and these indentured are somewhat so, most of our immigration policy gives no weight to the potential lifetime contributions of the world's smartest kids...and their kids.

Contrast this with China which has an entirely merit-based work visa program, with points for level of academic achievement, points for prestige of school, points for Chinese language proficiency, etc, etc...with virtually no hope of citizenship. And the only way to have extended residency is to be heavily invested in China...Id rather we focus our money and capital in making it so that American kids succeed, and we don't need this many foreign students. Every seat the goes to a foreign student is one that's pulled away from an American. That's not a good outcome, imho. Doubly so when we're dealing with the not-so nice realities of China's behavior. Why are we fighting a Trade War with them, while at the same time, we're letting their kids take our kid's seat at the table at elite Universities?

While it would tick off our allies and potential allies if we were to openly declare a merit based immigration system, trying to get and keep the brightest minds from all over the world, a brain-drain, it's what we should actually tilt towards...but don't. Even so, we attract many of these folks who overcome the hurdles in order to become US citizens...

We can accomplish your goals with 100K students. I'd rather give the other 200K work visas to desperately needed seasonal workers.

That's a baloney argument, as whether we do enough "seasonal visas" has nothing at all to do with how many student visas are in place each year or overall. Go ahead and do more seasonal, I'm all for it. Don't confuse the issues.It's not a baloney argument. Are we limiting the total number of visas per year, or not? If yes, my argument makes perfect sense. If not? Your point is the one that makes sense.

BTW, the reason I hate using these stupid colors is that when you hit "reply"....the color disappears, making it near impossible to figure out where to put your reply. So I have to keep checking on where I"m posting....don't like it.