They want to work in America, and a US qualification is the best ticket.FEOS wrote:
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-02-07 03:34:13)
Seems weird that you think comparing the number of students enrolled in a much larger system than any other single First World country is valid for determining the desirability of a system or its quality.FEOS wrote:
Granted, the data's from 2001...Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that....JohnG@lt wrote:
We already do have a great education system.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4a0ax.jpg
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg698_850_450.jpg
But as of the 07-08 academic year, we had 623,805 international students enrolled in our colleges. That set a record, so I'm guessing we're still in the lead.
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
Yeah, we're protectionist on certain things, but again, we're less protectionist overall than you, Canada or Europe.DrunkFace wrote:
That made me laugh.Turquoise wrote:
No, we're actually far less protectionist than Australia.
Your 'protection free' in the areas it suits you, and just like Australia protects its auto industry through subsidies, the US protects it's agriculture.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-07 11:34:45)
US isn't THAT protectionist about agriculture... Isn't like 95% of foods owned by the 4 largest food companies? US cattle is bleh compared to aussie ones tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, we're protectionist on certain things, but again, we're less protectionist overall than you, Canada, or Europe. Keep laughing.DrunkFace wrote:
That made me laugh.Turquoise wrote:
No, we're actually far less protectionist than Australia.
Your 'protection free' in the areas it suits you, and just like Australia protects its auto industry through subsidies, the US protects it's agriculture.
Based on what? Your mummies bed time stories?Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, we're protectionist on certain things, but again, we're less protectionist overall than you, Canada, or Europe. Keep laughing.DrunkFace wrote:
That made me laugh.Turquoise wrote:
No, we're actually far less protectionist than Australia.
Your 'protection free' in the areas it suits you, and just like Australia protects its auto industry through subsidies, the US protects it's agriculture.
The two things we're most protectionist on are agriculture and the auto industry. We probably are more protectionist than Australia when only looking at agriculture, and possibly the auto industry as well. However, we make up for it in other industries.Cybargs wrote:
US isn't THAT protectionist about agriculture... Isn't like 95% of foods owned by the 4 largest food companies? US cattle is bleh compared to aussie ones tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, we're protectionist on certain things, but again, we're less protectionist overall than you, Canada, or Europe. Keep laughing.DrunkFace wrote:
That made me laugh.
Your 'protection free' in the areas it suits you, and just like Australia protects its auto industry through subsidies, the US protects it's agriculture.
btw, is the Agricultural Adjustment Act still effective? Or does the gov not pay farmers for not growing anymore?
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-07 11:36:11)
Based on proportion of the economy.DrunkFace wrote:
Based on what? Your mummies bed time stories?Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, we're protectionist on certain things, but again, we're less protectionist overall than you, Canada, or Europe. Keep laughing.DrunkFace wrote:
That made me laugh.
Your 'protection free' in the areas it suits you, and just like Australia protects its auto industry through subsidies, the US protects it's agriculture.
Seems weird that you think people would spend their money to send students to a system that sucks as bad as you seem to think it does. It is most certainly a valid method of determining desirability and/or quality. If it sucked as bad as you say it does, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students--by far.Turquoise wrote:
Seems weird that you think comparing the number of students enrolled in a much larger system than any other single First World country is valid for determining the desirability of a system or its quality.FEOS wrote:
Granted, the data's from 2001...Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that....
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4a0ax.jpg
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg698_850_450.jpg
But as of the 07-08 academic year, we had 623,805 international students enrolled in our colleges. That set a record, so I'm guessing we're still in the lead.
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
EDIT: I'd rather not repeat myself, so if for some reason, you think that the total number enrolled determines quality, there's not much else I can say here.FEOS wrote:
Seems weird that you think people would spend their money to send students to a system that sucks as bad as you seem to think it does. It is most certainly a valid method of determining desirability and/or quality. If it sucked as bad as you say it does, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students--by far.Turquoise wrote:
Seems weird that you think comparing the number of students enrolled in a much larger system than any other single First World country is valid for determining the desirability of a system or its quality.FEOS wrote:
Granted, the data's from 2001...
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg698_850_450.jpg
But as of the 07-08 academic year, we had 623,805 international students enrolled in our colleges. That set a record, so I'm guessing we're still in the lead.
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-11 17:12:35)
I didn't say it determines quality. I said it is an indicator of what others think of the quality. Otherwise, why would they be coming here? If it weren't true, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students for so many years running--word would get out, don't you think?Turquoise wrote:
EDIT: I'd rather not repeat myself, so if for some reason, you think that the total number enrolled determines quality, there's not much else I can say here.FEOS wrote:
Seems weird that you think people would spend their money to send students to a system that sucks as bad as you seem to think it does. It is most certainly a valid method of determining desirability and/or quality. If it sucked as bad as you say it does, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students--by far.Turquoise wrote:
Seems weird that you think comparing the number of students enrolled in a much larger system than any other single First World country is valid for determining the desirability of a system or its quality.
Well, if you're saying that more international students = more prestige in the eyes of the international market, then I have some interesting conclusions for you...FEOS wrote:
I didn't say it determines quality. I said it is an indicator of what others think of the quality. Otherwise, why would they be coming here? If it weren't true, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students for so many years running--word would get out, don't you think?Turquoise wrote:
EDIT: I'd rather not repeat myself, so if for some reason, you think that the total number enrolled determines quality, there's not much else I can say here.FEOS wrote:
Seems weird that you think people would spend their money to send students to a system that sucks as bad as you seem to think it does. It is most certainly a valid method of determining desirability and/or quality. If it sucked as bad as you say it does, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students--by far.
If you can't make that connection on your own, there's not much else I can say here.
Could've fooled me. SUNY campuses seem like they're half asian.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if you're saying that more international students = more prestige in the eyes of the international market, then I have some interesting conclusions for you...FEOS wrote:
I didn't say it determines quality. I said it is an indicator of what others think of the quality. Otherwise, why would they be coming here? If it weren't true, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students for so many years running--word would get out, don't you think?Turquoise wrote:
EDIT: I'd rather not repeat myself, so if for some reason, you think that the total number enrolled determines quality, there's not much else I can say here.
If you can't make that connection on your own, there's not much else I can say here.
If we take that logic and apply it to schools individually, then that must mean that international students generally think the University of Southern California is better than Harvard. After all, more international students apply and are enrolled at USC than Harvard.
If we take that logic and apply it to states, then they must think schools are better in California than in NY, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, NJ, etc., since more international students are there than anywhere else in the U.S.
Same with UC's Asians everywhere. Amounts of Asians increased in top end schools as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
Could've fooled me. SUNY campuses seem like they're half asian.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if you're saying that more international students = more prestige in the eyes of the international market, then I have some interesting conclusions for you...FEOS wrote:
I didn't say it determines quality. I said it is an indicator of what others think of the quality. Otherwise, why would they be coming here? If it weren't true, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students for so many years running--word would get out, don't you think?
If you can't make that connection on your own, there's not much else I can say here.
If we take that logic and apply it to schools individually, then that must mean that international students generally think the University of Southern California is better than Harvard. After all, more international students apply and are enrolled at USC than Harvard.
If we take that logic and apply it to states, then they must think schools are better in California than in NY, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, NJ, etc., since more international students are there than anywhere else in the U.S.
Exactly. Hence, this is part of why FEOS's logic doesn't work.JohnG@lt wrote:
Could've fooled me. SUNY campuses seem like they're half asian.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if you're saying that more international students = more prestige in the eyes of the international market, then I have some interesting conclusions for you...FEOS wrote:
I didn't say it determines quality. I said it is an indicator of what others think of the quality. Otherwise, why would they be coming here? If it weren't true, it wouldn't be the #1 educator of international students for so many years running--word would get out, don't you think?
If you can't make that connection on your own, there's not much else I can say here.
If we take that logic and apply it to schools individually, then that must mean that international students generally think the University of Southern California is better than Harvard. After all, more international students apply and are enrolled at USC than Harvard.
If we take that logic and apply it to states, then they must think schools are better in California than in NY, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, NJ, etc., since more international students are there than anywhere else in the U.S.
I don't see how. It tells me that even a modest state university here in America is better than the schools in their home country. We may have some flaws in our country but the college system isn't one of them.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly. Hence, this is part of why FEOS's logic doesn't work.JohnG@lt wrote:
Could've fooled me. SUNY campuses seem like they're half asian.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if you're saying that more international students = more prestige in the eyes of the international market, then I have some interesting conclusions for you...
If we take that logic and apply it to schools individually, then that must mean that international students generally think the University of Southern California is better than Harvard. After all, more international students apply and are enrolled at USC than Harvard.
If we take that logic and apply it to states, then they must think schools are better in California than in NY, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, NJ, etc., since more international students are there than anywhere else in the U.S.
Until about three days ago.Dilbert_X wrote:
They want to work in America, and a US qualification is the best ticket.FEOS wrote:
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
The Australian education system is not tip-top, but we seems to have half of asia here studying mainly because it used to be a guaranteed path to a visa.
In some cases, yes. However, when looking at the size of our system vs. those of other countries like Canada, France, the U.K., etc., and then comparing the ratio of international students that enroll in our system vs. local students, we're still not the most desirable -- unless we're going with FEOS's assumption that total number overall determines desirability, which doesn't make sense when applied in the examples I just made.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see how. It tells me that even a modest state university here in America is better than the schools in their home country. We may have some flaws in our country but the college system isn't one of them.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly. Hence, this is part of why FEOS's logic doesn't work.JohnG@lt wrote:
Could've fooled me. SUNY campuses seem like they're half asian.
Fine, then do some ratios comparing populations of the countries he listed, student capacity and foreign students enrolled. Until then, his numbers looked pretty good to me.Turquoise wrote:
In some cases, yes. However, when looking at the size of our system vs. those of other countries like Canada, France, the U.K., etc., and then comparing the ratio of international students that enroll in our system vs. local students, we're still not the most desirable -- unless we're going with FEOS's assumption that total number overall determines desirability, which doesn't make sense when applied in the examples I just made.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see how. It tells me that even a modest state university here in America is better than the schools in their home country. We may have some flaws in our country but the college system isn't one of them.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly. Hence, this is part of why FEOS's logic doesn't work.
Simply put, we're better than most of the world, but not the very best of all.
I thought you'd never ask...JohnG@lt wrote:
Fine, then do some ratios comparing populations of the countries he listed, student capacity and foreign students enrolled. Until then, his numbers looked pretty good to me.Turquoise wrote:
In some cases, yes. However, when looking at the size of our system vs. those of other countries like Canada, France, the U.K., etc., and then comparing the ratio of international students that enroll in our system vs. local students, we're still not the most desirable -- unless we're going with FEOS's assumption that total number overall determines desirability, which doesn't make sense when applied in the examples I just made.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see how. It tells me that even a modest state university here in America is better than the schools in their home country. We may have some flaws in our country but the college system isn't one of them.
Simply put, we're better than most of the world, but not the very best of all.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-12 23:27:35)
My weighting makes no sense? So, somehow, assuming that total amounts of international students per system, regardless of size differences in systems, is more relevant than proportional amounts of international students per system?FEOS wrote:
671,616/104,000 = 645.79%
We can do this all day, Turq.
Your comparison is flawed. You're weighting makes no sense, as the total population of college students in a given country has no bearing on the number of international students in total attending college there. In fact, the higher population levels in general in the US would mask that metric, given your weighting schema.
Raw numbers do not matter at all. I will concede with you on the value factor, but again, to assume that raw totals are the best measure is extremely myopic.FEOS wrote:
Raw numbers are what matter here, not weighted numbers. Your east coast vs. west coast argument is irrelevant, as well. That likely boils down to cost vs value. Harvard and other Ivy League schools are overly proud of their degrees, when in the technical world, their names mean marginally more than those from other schools. Thus, the value of the extra cost simply isn't there. So you see people putting their educational investment dollars elsewhere.
Pretty easily explained, really.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-16 18:33:12)
If any of those factors had been what you had looked at, I would agree with your weighting system. However, it didn't.Turquoise wrote:
My weighting makes no sense? So, somehow, assuming that total amounts of international students per system, regardless of size differences in systems, is more relevant than proportional amounts of international students per system?FEOS wrote:
671,616/104,000 = 645.79%
We can do this all day, Turq.
Your comparison is flawed. You're weighting makes no sense, as the total population of college students in a given country has no bearing on the number of international students in total attending college there. In fact, the higher population levels in general in the US would mask that metric, given your weighting schema.
It absolutely has a bearing on the number of students that apply and get accepted. State schools, in particular, usually have a student body percentage quota that must consist of local students, because state taxes pay for these schools. So the percentage and number of international students even allowed in a college are somewhat limited by policy rather than desirability. This applies to both American colleges and colleges in other countries. So, if there's any problem with my metric here, it's not so much focusing on the percentage of international students per system as it is not taking into account these quotas.
The total number of students has very little bearing on desirability, because again, that's more a reflection of the size of the school, its affordability, and cultural/language factors.
And I would argue that your assumption that weighting is important is myopic, as well. You are too focused on a single issue and are ignoring the larger context. Raw numbers of international students are a far greater metric that weighting. For example, how many four-year university students do you think there are in the PRC? Probably far more than in the US. How about India. Likely the same. Yet the US has far more international students than either of those countries...as do several other countries with far smaller populations (and thus university populations). Those two examples alone disprove the adequacy of your weighting schema.Turquoise wrote:
Raw numbers do not matter at all. I will concede with you on the value factor, but again, to assume that raw totals are the best measure is extremely myopic.FEOS wrote:
Raw numbers are what matter here, not weighted numbers. Your east coast vs. west coast argument is irrelevant, as well. That likely boils down to cost vs value. Harvard and other Ivy League schools are overly proud of their degrees, when in the technical world, their names mean marginally more than those from other schools. Thus, the value of the extra cost simply isn't there. So you see people putting their educational investment dollars elsewhere.
Pretty easily explained, really.
