Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 293 posts

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#151

Post by newen »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #126
amf12 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are free to travel anywhere within the united states. Theoretically that's true for on-campus courses too. Most (at least that I know of) universities don't track attendance. So the students are still free to travel anywhere as long as they keep submitting online assignments and are physically present for any exams.

Attendance is tracked at any university with students that receive federal aid... So most of them.

You're probably thinking of universities submitting the number of students registered for each course. Attendance, how many students physically attend each class on a given day and which students do, is never tracked except by the occasional oddball professor who base grades on attendance.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#152

Post by refurb »

benrbray wrote: post #140
jimbob45 wrote: post #134

This is genius. If you assume that the Trump Administration did this to show their base that they're serious about deporting foreigners to garner election votes, then you can conclude that they've managed to do that with as much publicity as possible at virtually no cost financially. It's likely they knew this would never go through and didn't want a knockdown drag-out fight in the courts. However, they still capital…

I'm sorry, what? You think it's a good thing for our politicians to waste everyone's time by pushing policies they know will never pass / will be struck down in court, just to win political points? IMO this sort of thing is exactly what's wrong with the political climate right now. This sort of behavior makes it all about "us vs them" and shuts down any sort of nuanced discussion about what's best for the country.

Dude, you have no idea what happens behind closed doors. It’s absolutely a common political move to fight for something you don’t really care about and then use it as a bargaining chip to get what you do want.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#153

Post by wahern »

generationP wrote: post #139
ngngngng wrote: post #104

A well known religious University near me just started offering "in person" (wink wink) classes where attendance would not be taken. I was proud to see it.

Actually, most universities don't take attendance. It's a waste of time, it punishes pro-social behavior (there is no good reason for people feeling sick to go to class), and it's infantilizing. "Attendance required" often means "we will notice if you never attend, and then will feel less bad failing you if you don't do your homework either".

My law school classes took attendance. Rigorously. Because time management is a critical skill for attorneys, judges don't tolerate any amount of unannounced absenteeism, and missing filing deadlines can be and often is extremely costly, not just for you but for your client. (Also, taking attendance weeds out the liars. The ABA has strict attendance requirements and you're not supposed to get a degree if you miss them.)

If was a very tough transition because, of course, both in undergraduate and in professional life lackadaisical attitudes were tolerated, especially so long as you otherwise performed the substantive work.

We all love to rationalize away those things we dislike doing. But there was no wiggle room to rationalize it away in law school. I'm sure the military is similar.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#154

Post by standardUser »

haecceity wrote: post #101
balls187 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE stated they would have "free rein" not "full rein." The argument is essentially that by allowing students to take online classes, they are free to travel anywhere within the united states. With mandatory in person classes, they would be restricted to being near campus. The federal government would have a harder time keeping track of students, as their schools would no longer really have an idea if the students ar…

We want foreign students to experience freedom and liberty in America.

Right, we want them to come here and like it so much they settle down and become professors or researchers or entrepreneurs. It's kind of the secret to our success!

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#155

Post by gwright »

gnulinux wrote: post #127
mariodiana wrote: post #23

I'm not a lawyer, but how is it Harvard and MIT had standing in court for this case?

Others gave you good answers but also consider this. There are thousands of PhD students who create value for these universities. They not only do research, help research being made, they also teach others. Kicking all these people out of US due to whims of ICE harms universities' financial interest as well. Universities are not making their education remote because they choose to do so. They're doing precisely to pr…

FWIW, it is helpful to understand that this isn't ICE making policy randomly but in fact just enforcing the regulations surrounding student visas. The existing regulations were relaxed in March but the underlying regulatory idea is that you don't need a visa for online education and online education is not sufficient for a visa to be issued.

I tend to think that it was premature to rescind the temporary waiving of the oversight regulations, but that isn't the same thing as saying the underlying regulations don't have a rationale basis.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#157

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

nine_zeros wrote: post #14
atonse wrote: post #6

Excellent. The system worked this time. People challenged executive branch action through the judicial system and the executive branch backed down. But this should never have been an issue to begin with, think of all the unnecessary stress and anxiety this has caused for the hundreds of thousands of international students impacted by this.

> But this should never have been an issue to begin with, think of all the unnecessary stress and anxiety this has caused for the hundreds of thousands of international students impacted by this. More importantly, the long term damage is done. The noise was heard loud and clear that America is only as competent as its leader. Prospective future students are likely going to be ultra careful before choosing this countr…

> The noise was heard loud and clear that America is only as competent as its leader.

Honest question because I'm not a student of world politics: what countries have had consistently better governance over the last 20 years?

Every time some possibility comes to mind, I quickly recall a reason to cross it off the list.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#158

Post by powersnail »

generationP wrote: post #139
ngngngng wrote: post #104

A well known religious University near me just started offering "in person" (wink wink) classes where attendance would not be taken. I was proud to see it.

Actually, most universities don't take attendance. It's a waste of time, it punishes pro-social behavior (there is no good reason for people feeling sick to go to class), and it's infantilizing. "Attendance required" often means "we will notice if you never attend, and then will feel less bad failing you if you don't do your homework either".

Most universities don't require attendance, but quite a number of professors do take attendance and count it as part of the grade.

There were plenty courses where at the beginning of each lecture, we were asked to complete a trivial quiz (one question quiz) with iClickr. I believe that it was just a convenient way of taking attendance.

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#159

Post by gwright »

amf12 wrote: post #100
balls187 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE stated they would have "free rein" not "full rein." The argument is essentially that by allowing students to take online classes, they are free to travel anywhere within the united states. With mandatory in person classes, they would be restricted to being near campus. The federal government would have a harder time keeping track of students, as their schools would no longer really have an idea if the students ar…

> they are free to travel anywhere within the united states. Theoretically that's true for on-campus courses too. Most (at least that I know of) universities don't track attendance. So the students are still free to travel anywhere as long as they keep submitting online assignments and are physically present for any exams.

In the absence of the disruption to existing educational plans caused by the COVID-19 health emergency, why would foreign students (or any students) want to pay the regular tuition for 100% online instruction, and why would that require them to be physically in the US (i.e. to have a visa)? And why would a educational institution want to have the responsibility for keeping track of the physical location of students taking a 100% online instruction?

Re: U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas

#160

Post by lowmemcpu »

magicalist wrote: post #62
lowmemcpu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a look at all the agency websites under the Executive branch gives a pretty incredible overview of how out-of-control it's gotten [1]. And the number of czars have been growing [2] under both Obama and Trump (though I guess this administration doesn't use that title) [1] https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_...

> And the number of czars have been growing [2] under both Obama and Trump (though I guess this administration doesn't use that title) That list is "executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind", not anything official or affecting the duties of that person in any particular way.

Thank you for clarifying that
Post reply on HN