You’ve likely read this article, or any of the multiple similar ones, articles promoting increased immigration of skilled workers based on data such as this:
On the high-skill end of the spectrum, 56 percent of engineering doctoral degrees, 51 percent of computer science doctoral degrees, and 44 percent of physics doctoral degrees were awarded in 2011 to students who were neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. National Science Foundation data show that 163,000 foreign graduate students studied science and engineering in U.S. universities in 2010, up from 152,000 in 2008.
Proposals have been made to give any STEM graduate of a U.S. university (or perhaps, specifically graduate programs there) automatic permanent residence here.
But this is based on a false understanding of what this statistic means.
To begin with, what we don’t know is this: are these spots in doctoral programs “excess” spots that would otherwise go unfilled, or are qualified American students losing out to non-Americans who, by virtue of the fact that these universities attract the “cream of the crop,” best them in qualifications? More generally speaking, is there a true “shortage” of American STEM graduates? The fact that we have non-Americans studying here does not in any way “prove” any such shortage, any more than the fact that there are non-American tourists at the Grand Canyon proves that there are insufficient American tourists. And, if there is a true shortage, should we not be growing our own? Are we not at risk, if we rely on other countries, in the same way as “dependence on foreign oil” is a worry?
Alternatively, one could say that we, as a country, should have a policy of admitting as a permanent resident anyone with a degree in a STEM field from a high-quality university, because technically-skilled immigrants are a plus for the country. But in that case, what does it matter how many students get their credentials from, specifically, an American university?
And, in the end, if what is happening is that we’re pulling the best and the brightest from China, India, Africa, and elsewhere to attend our universities, in a very intentional brain drain, that doesn’t really sit right with me. Consider Africa specifically: they sorely need talented graduates to develop their own countries. On the other hand, if we’re bringing the wealthiest students from these countries, those who have wealthy and often politically connected parents, are there unintended consequences there?
The American university system, insofar as we’re attracting significant students from abroad, who, in in many cases, are being actively recruited because they’re full-pay and contribute to the bottom line, is a sort of export industry, even though it takes place on American soil. Functionally, it’s roughly the equivalent, in terms of its beneficial effect on the American economy, of universities setting up branches abroad — and should have just as much, or just as little, impact on debates over American immigration policy.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In