U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by amf12 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #159

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.

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 t…

> In the absence of the disruption to existing educational plans caused by the COVID-19 health emergency

But there is disruption caused due to the health emergency.

> why would foreign students (or any students) want to pay the regular tuition for 100% online instruction

They wouldn't and embassies are closed, so no new students are coming to attend the online courses. The students we are talking about are already in the US. The choice they have is drop out or continue with online courses. Whether they should pay 100% tuition or not is a separate argument.

> and why would that require them to be physically in the US (i.e. to have a visa)

They are already in the US. Would the US government be willing to cancel their home leases, car loans or leases, so on and so forth? If not I don't see any reason to kick them out. Educational programs are typically between 2-6 years. These people have their life in the US right now. I don't see any reason to kick them out.

> 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?

They don't have to is what my previous comment you replied to is implying.

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

#282

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #258

qwerty456127 wrote: post #257

Am I the only one thinking fighting to rid the country of the students resourceful enough to study in Harvard and MIT is madness? I would rather give them citizenship without even waiting for them to graduate.

For the sake of circumspection, I suppose a counterpoint to your thinking might go like this...... These institutions receive an abundance of high-quality applications every year and choose only a few; for every admitted international student, several amazing domestic applicants are rejected. The government does not need to bend over backwards for the international students who won the admissions lottery, because the…

The counterpoint to that is that international students are a cash cow for universities.

They aren't taking away seats from domestic students. They are subsidizing the ability for more domestic students to study there.

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

#283

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #266

karmelapple wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ranked Choice Voting, which is now the law for all elections in the state of Maine except the Presidency, is a way to help ensure that the winning candidate has been chosen by at least 50% of voters, even if the winning candidate wasn’t the first choice for all voters. Adopting RCV seems to me like one of the best ways we can improve the health of the US’s democracy going forward. Any voters Massachusetts can vote th…

RCV is an improvement on FPTP -- almost anything would be! -- but Approval Voting is even better. It is easier to implement (the ballot doesn't change at all, just the way it's counted), simpler for voters to understand (you just vote for every candidate you approve of), much less susceptible to strategic voting and not at all to strategic candidate selection, and therefore much less likely to return an anomalous res…

[deleted]

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

#284

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #259

stu2b50 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blunder was retracting the special exception made during Spring 2020 that allowed F and M visa students to take online classes. The pandemic is far from over, especially in the US, a fact which is obvious to everyone. The retraction is pure stupidity. Of course it would be unreasonable to ask int students to attend in person classes given the situation.

I have been on the fence about this policy, for the following reason. On the one hand, it seems overtly xenophobic and anti-intellectual. On the other hand, I don't see why an international student needs to be in the United States in order to participate exclusively in online classes. Even if the issue is a lack of human welfare (eg unsafe neighborhood) or necessary infrastructure (eg slow/inconsistent internet) back…

Why should someone who is already living in the US for the purposes of studying have to move somewhere else during a global pandemic and then move back to continue studying when the pandemic is over?

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

#285

Post by totalZero » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #282

totalZero wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of circumspection, I suppose a counterpoint to your thinking might go like this...... These institutions receive an abundance of high-quality applications every year and choose only a few; for every admitted international student, several amazing domestic applicants are rejected. The government does not need to bend over backwards for the international students who won the admissions lottery, because the…

The counterpoint to that is that international students are a cash cow for universities. They aren't taking away seats from domestic students. They are subsidizing the ability for more domestic students to study there.

Only a small fraction of MIT's revenue comes from tuition.

https://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html

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

#286

Post by stu2b50 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #259

stu2b50 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blunder was retracting the special exception made during Spring 2020 that allowed F and M visa students to take online classes. The pandemic is far from over, especially in the US, a fact which is obvious to everyone. The retraction is pure stupidity. Of course it would be unreasonable to ask int students to attend in person classes given the situation.

I have been on the fence about this policy, for the following reason. On the one hand, it seems overtly xenophobic and anti-intellectual. On the other hand, I don't see why an international student needs to be in the United States in order to participate exclusively in online classes. Even if the issue is a lack of human welfare (eg unsafe neighborhood) or necessary infrastructure (eg slow/inconsistent internet) back…

Why make them leave? This gives them a sudden 10 day window to pack their shit and gtfo.

People have year long leases. People have commitments. Even if they choose to leave, no doubt they would prefer to do it on their time, not with ICE breathing down their neck.

Airplane tickets are expensive and rare. It's fucking hard to just uproot yourself in 10 days if your school becomes online only.

Also, having your visa revoked ducks the OPT process, in case you ever wanted to work in the US in the near future.

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

#287

Post by thephyber » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #243

dragonwriter wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue the end-users (voters) mostly consider this a bug while the developers (majority party legislators at the state level) consider it a feature. Voters consider the paralysis a feature when it is presenting a hostile legislative majority or executive from realizing their agenda, and a bug when it is preventing a friendly one.

> Voters consider the paralysis a feature when it is presenting a hostile legislative majority or executive from realizing their agenda, and a bug when it is preventing a friendly one. Yes, that's what they said: paralysis is always a feature, because the legislative majority is always hostile to the people.

I think your parent was describing the nuance between "voters" and "voters who are aligned with the legislative majority", which is fair.

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

#288

Post by grandmczeb » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 11:42 PM UTC

alexfromapex wrote: post #150

grandmczeb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Lobbying” as the reflexive reason for all political ills is tiresome, especially considering aggressive lobbying by universities is likely what caused this reversal.

So you're actually opting into your democracy being a plutocracy because it's tiresome?

Have you ever called an elected official to express support for a bill? Congratulations! You're now an official member of the Plutocratic Lobbyist Upper Class(TM). Branded monocles and top hats are available for purchase on our website.

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

#289

Post by iskander » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 1:31 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #245

iskander wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside blue states with moderate Republican governors, I see: 1/10 (Duke) 5/20 (Duke, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U) 15/45 (Duke, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U, Emory, Ann Arbor, Wake Forest, UVa, Georgia Tech, UNC-CH, UF, Case Western, College of William and Mary, Tulane) I doubt the split would be at the top 10 because they're simply too small to absorb all the domestic demand. I'm not sure how…

As far as Tulane goes, JBE (Louisiana) is a Democrat. Gretchen Whitmer is in MI too.

No true Redstate?

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

#290

Post by anotherman554 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #153

generationP wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

I doubt that's why law school classes take attendance. To take the bar you need to graduate from a law school (with rare exception) so the law school has an incentive to pretend they are an essential part of the process and something important is happening in class.

It would be embarrassing to the school and the idea of continued employment of the professors if it was revealed how easy it is to pass the law school classes and the bar without ever attending a lecture.