Join the debate: Should colleges in the United States adopt policies to insure that more of their graduate students in the sciences are Americans?

The real threat for America is at the cutting-edge of technology. What happens when the top scientists and engineers in the world (most of whom will be foreigners) choose to have loyalties to their home countries instead of the US? Who in America will be able to out think them? Will America become subservient to other intellectually strong countries? Once this generation of professors are dead, who will become the American Professoriate, the keepers and makers of knowledge? History has clearly shown that he who controls the technology rules. Beware America, cover your backs!

-- Sally Sue (posted 6/28, 1:30 p.m., E.D.T.)

The reasons for American students shunning science Ph.D. programs at US universities are easy to understand if you look at the numbers carefully.
Science careers just do not give adequate returns in terms of time and effort that go into them. The time to earn a Ph.D. has crept up to 6-7 years. During those years you are solely dependent on staying in your advisors good graces. The advisors power is absolute and most graduate students discover that protection from abuse exist only on paper at most universities.

After going through this, what is there to look forward to? Upwards of 50 per cent of Ph.D.s in most fields end up as postdocs making about $24,000 a year without any benefits. In some biology and physics fields upwards of 90 per cent end up as low wage postdocs. After postdocing for 4 years, 10-20 per cent are able to get faculty positions. The rest look for niches here and there where they can use their skills.

The solutions are there for anybody who faces facts. To make science careers attractive to Americans, you need to curb time to degree, build adequate safeguards into the system against abuse, and pay postdocs salaries which value their professional skills. If a BS in science can make $40,000 a year in starting salary in industry, why is it surprising that Americans are not clamoring to get into Ph.D. programs after which they will make $24,000 a year?


-- Rahul Chawla, University of Delaware (posted 5/17, 11:14 a.m., E.D.T.)
After reading the comments on foreign student limitations, I felt that this is a real hot, and may be an irritating, topic to many people on both sides of the issue. As an International student I would like to voice my opinion.
Well, it is my experience that:

1- Ph.D studies are not appealing to most American students in science and engineering because of financial reasons. The average TA or RA would take home about $15-18 K a year. This is compared to a potential 40-50 K on entry level jobs in industrial firms. So that in a good economy certainly one would choose having a job that pays well, at least above school salary, and in the meantime provides some potential for advancement. A market for an engineer with a Ph.D. is less promising than that for one with a masters.

2-International students are in general more willing to work harder that their American counterparts. This is not because of superiority, or being more smart. It is a matter of less distractions here than back home. After all, one arrives in the united states more or less unknowing of what to do in your spare time. That is no friends or group activities at least for the first year. Add this to some sense of responsibility and a feeling that you have to succeed no matter what, then you have a strong potential to work harder. Now, I am not stating that American students are less competitive or less hard working. However, being in your natural environment does not require readjustments and after all you will have some social responsibilities to friends and family and so on.

3-there is a growing general perception among American undergraduates that one will be less marketable with a Ph.D. than with a masters or a bachelor. Unfortunately, this trend is promoted by some major U.S firms. To my understanding your are almost always labeled overqualified due to company financial reason. As a matter of fact the difference in starting salary for B.Sc. and a Ph.D. is not significant in most cases. o why waste time in acquiring a degree that guarantees little.

4- It is already against the rules to support foreign graduate students from tax payers money. There are also many restrictions on applying federal and some state grant money to foreign graduate students.

5- Yes there is much abuse to foreign students on behalf of some advisors. I am even ware of some hard pressed self missionaries who promote conversion to Christianity and threaten ending of funding to their students. Of course once a student embraces the new faith he is assisted in many ways. I would like to stress, however, that most academic advisors are decent nice people who in a true sense of scholarship embrace their foreign students and help them in a variety of ways.

The issue however is not to limit or unlimit foreign enrollment. The issue is how to create a balance between both. After all remember, that only the cream of the foreign student crop who is accepted in American Universities. I guess that any body should feel lucky that he has the best minds that the world has to offer in his back yard to benefit from and share knowledge with. May be that is what the world needs for less conflicts. Thank you

-- Hisham A. Abdel-Aal, Ph.D (posted 5/14, 12:40 p.m., E.D.T.)

 suggest that no general scholarships from federal or state funds be used to fund foreign graduate students.

-- Jon Pope, Formerly Texas A&M University (posted 5/12, 10:05 a.m., E.D.T.)