How protectionistic are public schools?

[Catria]

I know that protectionism, in an admissions context, means favoring domestic applicants over international ones (in a PhD context, this is due to the cost of awarding tuition waivers when fielding funded offers), sometimes to the point where less-qualified domestics (or in-staters even) get in at the expense of better-qualified internationals.

 

For undergrad, UNC-Chapel Hill is notorious for being so protectionistic that out-of-staters (domestics and internationals alike) have to check against Duke's standards if they want to assess whether it's worth applying or not, thanks to the 82% rule in place there.

 

I know Minnesota's physics department isn't overly protectionistic, unlike UCSB (and to a lesser extent, UNC-Chapel Hill)

 

But how field-specific (within the same school) is protectionism? I would perfectly imagine UNC-CH (for example) physics department being more protectionistic than history, and vice-versa.

[fuzzylogician]

This depends on the specific school and (perhaps) program. There is no set answer. In general, public schools have an incentive to admit more local students (because it's part of their mission, and because local students cost less than international ones; in some states, out of state students can become residents after one year, but international students never can). Private schools should generally not care about anyone's nationality, since tuition costs the same for everyone. That said, it's also very possible that certain departments or professors like working with students from certain countries or universities.

[Catria]

Then what schools would be more protectionistic in your field?

[Rahat1]

I also agree it depends on the school and their programme and the facilities the school provide.

[fuzzylogician]

Then what schools would be more protectionistic in your field?

 

I'm sorry, the term protectionist is just so odd to me. Public universities in the US receive funding in part in order to offer reasonably affordable (by US standards) education for the local residents that fund the university through their taxes. Beyond that, the university needs to worry about its finances, and since international students are much more expensive than domestic ones, it makes financial sense that fewer international students can be funded than domestic ones. When someone says "protectionist" I imagine threats and money being paid in ransom to keep someone safe. That's not what's going on here.

 

But yes -- generally, where international students cost more, there will probably be fewer of them that can be funded. Citizenship should not play a role at private institutions since tuition is the same for everyone there, but it makes a difference at (at least some) public universities. That's the same in my field and in other fields. The main question is whether a department has enough money to fund international students that it wants, and since there is more money in STEM than in the Humanities, my guess is that the disparity is greater in the latter fields compared to the former, just because in STEM it may be easier for PIs to decide to fund international students, if they want them badly enough, since they can win grant money to allow them to do that. But again, this is a guess, and still I'd assume that it's cheaper to fund domestic students in STEM, too, so they would have an easier time getting in.

[victorydance]

I'm sorry, the term protectionist is just so odd to me. When someone says "protectionist" I imagine threats and money being paid in ransom to keep someone safe. That's not what's going on here.

 

Really? Protectionist (more specifically, protectionism) is the perfect word to describe what the OP is asking. Have you not heard of protectionist policies such as tariffs, immigration, or fair competition laws?

 

If not, have a read:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

Edited February 23, 2015 by victorydance

[Crucial BBQ]

Fuzzylogician is close...

 

State schools are heavily subsidized by local (that is, in-State) taxes.  So in many ways the resident students (or most likely their parents) have been paying into that through their taxes for years, if not for the entirety of their working lives thus far (assuming they are not from another State).  Typically, those who attend a state school within their same State are most likely to remain in that same State, thus continuing to pay into the system through their own taxes.  So, in one hand it is not fair for non-residents to receive the same resident tuition, and in the other, graduates are more likely to continue to pay into the system long after they graduate.  

 

I am not really sure how International students cost more in grad school, but for undergrad there really should be no difference between, say, a student from Guam attending the same North Carolina university as a student from Montana except that the International student is more likely to go back home after graduation and, thus, not contributing to the system with future tax dollars. 

 

The cost of non-resident tuition at public universities is close to the actual price tag to attend (the difference between resident and non-resident tuition should give you an indication of how much the public is picking up with tax dollars). Because non-residents pay more, public universities are upping their non-resident quotas to help bring more money into the university.   Grad school is a bit different.  Historically, graduate school was training ground and conditioning for a career in academia.  Much of that is still true.  In some ways it makes little sense for a U.S. university to train academics who are likely to not get jobs in U.S. academia.  And if that is the goal it is a Catch-22 as there are already too many Americans who are trying to get those same jobs.  Also, there is the question of why?  Surely there are top universities in most countries around the world, so why study/train in the U.S.?  Why learn the American way of doing things when your Ph.D. in your home country might only take three years and with a heck of a lot less hoops to jump through?  

[TakeruK]

I am not really sure how International students cost more in grad school, but for undergrad there really should be no difference between, say, a student from Guam attending the same North Carolina university as a student from Montana except that the International student is more likely to go back home after graduation and, thus, not contributing to the system with future tax dollars.

 

 The difference is that in many states (e.g. California) an out-of-state American will become a California resident after 1 year living in the state. In fact, for American students, many public California schools will only pay the difference in out-of-state tuition for year 1--if you do not gain in-state residency after the first year, you pay the non-resident tuition out of pocket. International students, on the other hand, can never become in-state residents no matter how long they stay. This is a large part of why we cost so much more.

 

The cost of non-resident tuition at public universities is close to the actual price tag to attend (the difference between resident and non-resident tuition should give you an indication of how much the public is picking up with tax dollars). Because non-residents pay more, public universities are upping their non-resident quotas to help bring more money into the university.   Grad school is a bit different.  Historically, graduate school was training ground and conditioning for a career in academia.  Much of that is still true.  In some ways it makes little sense for a U.S. university to train academics who are likely to not get jobs in U.S. academia.  And if that is the goal it is a Catch-22 as there are already too many Americans who are trying to get those same jobs.  Also, there is the question of why?  Surely there are top universities in most countries around the world, so why study/train in the U.S.?  Why learn the American way of doing things when your Ph.D. in your home country might only take three years and with a heck of a lot less hoops to jump through?

I'll respond to the parts I bolded:

 

First, I went to the US because for my field, the US does it way better. This field was born in the 1950s basically in the United States. The US has the resources to carry out exciting and cutting edge research and this is where I will learn how to be the best planetary scientist I can be. Also, because of the above, most Canadians in my field have PhDs from US schools. I agree with you that I could become an expert in Canada too, which is why I only applied to the top US schools -- i.e. places that provide me with opportunities that Canada cannot provide. Many other international students feel this way too, so now you have only the best students from foreign countries applying to already the most selective (best) programs in the US. This self-selection makes it very competitive to get a grad school spot as an international student.

 

To the other bolded comment, I completely agree. My visa status requires me to return to Canada for at least 2 years after finishing my status. The United States government is basically using American dollars to pay to train me and then sending me away. Many of my American friends think this is a silly setup and wasteful! I'm not sure why US Immigration is so against foreign students immigrating and staying and as you say, paying back into the system. My time as a foreign student is explicitly excluded from time earned towards residency etc. 

 

On the other hand, Canada actively encourages PhD students to become residents and stay! You can become a permanent resident (i.e. green card) after 2 years into a PhD program (this is usually year 4 of grad school since you do a 2 year masters prior to a 3-4 year PhD). There is a special immigration pathway made especially for foreign PhD students so that we 1) retain talent and 2) allow others to "pay back" into the system.

 

Now why would the US have it the opposite way? That is, why bother accepting international students at all? Part of it is for prestige--even if international students don't stay, they will come back to their home countries with great things to say about their wonderful hosts. Another part may be for diversity of ideas--while international students are present, they can share different perspectives. And finally, part of it is just playing nice with your neighbours. American students go abroad to other countries for schools and exchanges, and in order to keep good relationships, America also need to host international students and reciprocate.

[victorydance]

 In some ways it makes little sense for a U.S. university to train academics who are likely to not get jobs in U.S. academia.  And if that is the goal it is a Catch-22 as there are already too many Americans who are trying to get those same jobs.  Also, there is the question of why?  Surely there are top universities in most countries around the world, so why study/train in the U.S.?  Why learn the American way of doing things when your Ph.D. in your home country might only take three years and with a heck of a lot less hoops to jump through?  

 

In general, the top universities in the USA are better than any universities in all the other countries. When you work your way down the list, it gets a whole lot murkier, except that for the most part the top 10 in the US usually are the best universities in their respective fields in the world. They have the most resources, funding, and often employ the best professors in the field. Therefore, it's pretty easy to see why international students want to go to the US to study. 

 

And just to expand on the Canada example that TakeruK already started...a Canadian that has a Ph.D. from a top US university has a huge leg up on other Canadian applicants for TT positions. Yes, one can get a perfectly good doctoral education attending universities like U of T, McGill, or UBC, but at the end of the day if you are on the job market and applying for Canadian positions, having a Ph.D. from Yale, Princeton, or Harvard is going to make a huge difference. This is especially true for more developing countries where a Ph.D. from a top American school can open countless doors for someone.

 

As far as universities caring about Americans over internationals...well, you have to think of it from a collective action perspective.

 

First of all, academia doesn't actually care if the market is over saturated, in fact, they prefer it this way because it means they are getting dozens of more applicants when they put out open job postings for TT positions. More competition = better candidates each time they hire someone for a TT job. The system is built to keep pumping out Ph.D. students because it benefits universities in numerous ways.

 

Secondly, grad schools want the best students. Period. The goal of any top university is to conduct research. Graduate students play a role in that goal both directly and indirectly. Directly through working as research assistants and providing highly skilled labour for cheap and also co-authoring papers or book chapters. And indirectly by being teaching assistants or other positions that helps professors do less service and/or teaching so they can be more productive in their research goals. If you don't let the best candidates in for doctoral studies, then your research will inevitably suffer and the matter of the fact is that there are dozens of extremely bright international applicants out there. If one school decides to not let in any internationals then they suffer to the competition of other schools: therefore they all let in international students because it's in their interests to do so.

[Karoku_valentine]

Actually it might make more sense to admit non funded international students more than to admit local students, since they are always going to be out of state students they will always pay more than locals. However, funding international students might be more expensive.

 

Still, sometimes there are not enough good local students and the international students are much better or applied in larger numbers. This is probably true for several STEM fields; I was reviewing U Minnesota applicants to the Department of Statistics and around 70% (a large number, I can't recall quite well) were internationals, and so, more international students will be admitted and funded.