Immigration Watch International (2): Immigrants in U.S. Doctoral Programs

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Immigrants in U.S. Doctoral Programs

Immigrants received nearly half of all doctoral degrees issued in the U.S. in 2022. Despite their overrepresentation, immigrants are relatively average as doctorate recipients — neither the towering geniuses of advocates’ imagination nor the unqualified cheap labor that critics denounce. Current policy may cause natives to be crowded out of doctoral programs by foreign students whose skills are merely ordinary. Broader implications for “staple a green card” and other skill-based immigration proposals are discussed.

Introduction

Anyone who has spent time in a university setting in the past few decades has probably noticed the large share of immigrants among the doctoral students there. The federal government’s Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) confirms that observation. While the number of doctorates earned by natives has risen only slightly since 1974, the number of doctorates issued to immigrants has increased much more.1 This increase is overwhelmingly among temporary immigrants who likely have student visas. In fact, temporary immigrants received 35 percent of all doctorates in the U.S. in 2022, including 75 percent of immigrant doctorates.

The student visa program naturally leads to immigrants earning a share of U.S. doctorates that exceeds their share of the population. Figure 2 quantifies the effect by combining SED data with the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) and population figures published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).2 Natives are underrepresented among U.S. doctorate recipients, while naturalized or permanent resident immigrants receive a proportional share, and temporary immigrants are vastly overrepresented due to student visas.

https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-US-Doctoral-Programs

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Immigrants in U.S. Doctoral Programs

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors