It was not like this back in 'the day', by the way.
Not that anyone actually cares.
101–110 of 143 posts
It was not like this back in 'the day', by the way.
Not that anyone actually cares.
On the other hand, this really isn't the reform these visas need right now. Lets work on the fact that visa holders live and die by their employers whims first, giving them basically zero leverage in an already low-leverage situation and diluting the value of native workers at the same time. This should come first if we're going to muck with anything, considering that's the raging dumpster fire consuming most of the towering garbage heap that is the h1-b visa process, imo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't believe there's a shortage of talent in this country. Do you have any experience in hiring people? East coast here and its impossible to find citizens who can code FizzBuzz. Those that can already have a job and don't come to interviews. There are multiple thousands of very high paying security related job openings that need citizens only, because of clearances. Zero percent unemployment: https://cybersecuri…
Have been on the hiring end here and have a strong preference for citizen and LPR hires. Even so, finding the right talent is challenging because we’re not a famous tech company. All the talented kids who are citizens want to work for cool companies, and we’re not one. Also statistically very few citizens go to grad school in STEM fields, and we’re looking for folks with graduate-level education in our field. Our sal…
Just so you know, that's illegal discrimination.
They have raised the chances of folks with advanced degress getting hired by a paltry 16%, or 5000 in number to be exact. Is this a significant difference?
The regulatory bang-for-buck is pretty high, though -- no complex rule-making, no significant change in procedure, just a 16% bump for practically nothing.
I mean, they can do it by 50% even if they so wish, why aim for 16%?
-Sort the applications by pay, descending.
-Approve the top-k.
-Deny the rest.
Let the market sort it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The regulatory bang-for-buck is pretty high, though -- no complex rule-making, no significant change in procedure, just a 16% bump for practically nothing.
I see, but can't they do that anytime they want? I mean, they can do it by 50% even if they so wish, why aim for 16%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody, certainly not me, is disparaging the credentials of immigrant graduates from top American universities. But there exists a long tail of Universities, many of them who seem to exist solely as a pathway to fulfillment of the American Dream of immigrat students. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-enrollme... Consider two statements: A) Most immigrant graduates are of low caliber. B) Most imm…
The real question is whether its worth going after the long tail if its an insignificant fraction of incoming immigrants (and really, an insignificant number in total). You have to consider that, in making sure the long tail is taken care of, you risk in making it significantly harder for the rest of the lot to make it through.
Why this change though, instead of changing to a pay-based system (give visas to the 85k workers with the highest salaries)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real question is whether its worth going after the long tail if its an insignificant fraction of incoming immigrants (and really, an insignificant number in total). You have to consider that, in making sure the long tail is taken care of, you risk in making it significantly harder for the rest of the lot to make it through.
My experience has been that the long tail, in aggregate, form a large segment of the immigrant graduate population. I already stated this in my previous comment as statement A.