HTTP://DEBATEPEDIA.IDEBATE.

ORG
/EN/INDEX.PHP/ARGUMENT:_
%22BRAIN_DRAIN
%22_IS_A_COST_OF_INTERNATION
AL_OPENNESS_TO_FOREIGN_STUD
ENTS

Argument: "Brain drain" is a cost of

international openness to foreign students
From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

[Edit
Edit]]

Parent debate
• Debate archive: Governments and universities everywhere should compete to
attract qualified students regardless of nationality or residence

[Edit
Edit]]

Supporting quotes from the Economist Debate Series

• Jeetandra, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 20, 2007
11:34 - "This debate is quite intense. People usually believe that having a global-
education system is helpful. The most notable remark that is common across all
pro's is the educational-freedom. It is beyond any doubt that the country on the
receiving side of the talented student benefits, but someone is still loosing, which
is country from where the students are drained - a phenomenon we call brain-
drain.

When a government or a university seeks students, they tend to pick the cream;
with screening done through a series of thorough tests and examinations. This
 implies that the student seeking experience outside their country are among the
best cadre. Once gone, they leave behind a hole in the country they desert.
Notable examples are developing nations such as India and China where this
phenomenon has caused a considerable number of brilliant students who are now
in developed countries, those being United States and in Europe. If we look only
from receiving country's axis, it has raised the bar for local competition and in
turn, made the work-force more productive. But this tolls the developing nations."

• rtfsouth. Commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. Education 2. December

14th, 2007 - "To address another point - the famous 'brain drain' argument, that
top students who go overseas for higher education often do not return. This is an
issue, albeit one that affects each country differently.In general, the Proposition
states that all Universities "should" recruit the best and the brightest. So, let's
see... who will wind up with the best students... ah yes, Harvard, Oxford, Yale -
the usual suspects. So the universities in home countries will be deprived of some
(or most) of their best and brightest, because they lack the money, prestige,
faculty, etc. to truly compete. Some will come back home, many will not.Well,
that certainly helps out the developing countries, doesn't it? All very nice for
developed countries to be generously offer to steal the best and brightest from
each other - it's a fair fight. Developing nations - your results may differ.It was
moving to hear from people in Bangladesh and Indonesia about their struggle to
get an education not available in their country. I note one thing they seem to have
in common - they aren't rich, and that is their barrier.If the Proposition meant
what it said, it might address the financial aspect as well - "regardless of
nationality, or residence, or ability to pay". A telling omission. Note that the
necessary implication of arguments put forward on both sides is that these
students are qualified first by their wealth, later by their talent - both sides note
the financial advantages of charging foreign students extra. The arguments about
the supposed cultural advantages of the system must be seen in the light of this
little factoid.As curently structured,there is a tendancy for this system to help the
rich get richer. Also to maintain the current elites in power. This can be a good
thing or a bad thing, largely depending on the country of origin.Perhaps if the
Proposition were modified as above, to be somewhat needs blind, then maybe the
Proposition would be a little more convincing."

• Thoughtful, commenter. Economist Debate Series, Education 2. December 14,

2007 14:24 - "Though all views have merit, what about the view that if any one
country or region tries to "hog" all the best, young minds, that does not benefit the
rest of the world, as globally, we are only as strong as our weakest link -- and
"hogging" the best, young minds would leave other less affluent coutnries bereft
of their best and brightest -- those able to help their home countries become,
exactly what the US wants to be -- the strongest competitor and wealthy,
effectively at the cost to other countries, without regard to the effect this has on
the have-not's -- thereby creating more weak links in the global chain we live in --
whether the US likes to think and act thusly or not. My vote is not yet cast, but I
do hope as a fellow debater, that both sides will address this inescapable issue.
 Competition is only possible if all respect the rules, no? "Rich makes right" seesm
to lose its punch here, as it often does, when one considers the cost to the global
economy of any one country or region "hogging" all the best and young minds.
There are plenty for all, no? It would seem that cross-border cooperation of these
best and youngest minds from their home countries, once they are educated,
would benefit us all most. Respectfully submitted..."

• Lalapie, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. Education 2. December 13,

2007 20:43 - "Many U.S. medical schools continue to accept applicants from
developing countries in the HOPE that they will return to their country of origin
to improve its healthcare system and treat the poor and underserved. This is
usually the argument many potential foreign students make to convince the
admissions committee to accept them at U.S. medical schools during their
interview and application process. These students, when they become physicians,
rarely return home. Sadly, they usually stay in the U.S. and practice in a field
which is very lucrative and become even more wealthly. By doing this, they hurt
their country and its people who are in desperate need of their services. These
physicians may have previously considered themselves "poor" by American
standards but this is not the case in their home country...they are usually upper-
middle class from college educated parents and the top 5% of earners in their
home country. Most of the people I have met in third world countries who are in
desperate need of healthcare services are unable to read and do not have access to
even a local primary education! The upper-class in developing countries live well
and do not appear to associate with the poor...these are the ones that want a
foreign education because they do not plan to return to their home countries when
they finish. If these foreign students who obtain medical degrees from the U.S.
and/or Europe truly cared about their own country and its people, they would
return to their homeland after graduation to treat the underserved and make much
needed improvements in its healthcare system. Because of this, very few United
States citizens who apply to medical schools are actually admitted (about 2% of
all applicants this year) even though many of these applicants desperately want to
attend and have worked very hard for this opportunity. Most of the physicians in
my area, Washington, D.C., are foreign born and do not want to go back to their
own country even though they are DESPERATELY needed. These physicians
and other health care professionals often live in the most exclusive communities
and drive the best cars. Therefore, I, and many others like me, give money to non-
profit organizations and pay our own expenses to travel overseas to treat the poor
in developing countries for free to make up for their lack of healthcare access.
How do foreign medical students help their country of origin when they refuse to
go home after they are finished with their medical education and training
abroad?"

• Lord Wells, commenter. Online Economist Debate Series. December 13, 2007
03:37 - "Part of teh debate must be teh cost benefits to teh Global economy - do
the students return to establish wealth creation and educational development in
their coutries of origin (Africa for example)or does the recruitment of foreign
 students deplete teh young talent from the potential and future work force of
developing countires, never to return and benefit their countries of origin? I
suspect there is a higher percentage who leave to study in the UK, Europe and teh
US and never return."

• Yauponder, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. Education 2. December

11, 2007 08:09 - "This issue is like global free trade: pure open market with
border-less competition. Suuuure it makes sense... if you're the country with all
the money, like mine. The widget should be available to all countries and go
where it fetches the highest price. But what if you're the poorest country, should
all your potatoes be exported to the highest bidder? Should the poorer citizens of
the country that grows the potatoes starve so that the richest country gets the
lowest price? Should your intelligent youth be exported to the countries with the
richest universities? Should the classroom discussions in the poor country suffer
from brain drain? There are some cases, even within the richest of countries,
where pure border-less competition is not allowed. Consider water rights in the
Western United States. If these were all available to the highest bidder, Las Vegas
would own them all, and poorer towns would literally dry up. In closing,
competition between 2 matched opponents is second to none in bettering both, but
annihilation does little for either. While the universities compete to better
themselves and the students they attract, they ought to respect the countries which
nurtured these students."

• Besantos, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 12, 2007

08:18 - "what would happen to the nationals who, even being pretty smart, would
have to choose not so strong instituions? Would those foreign students then stay
in the country of study and continue to occupy strategic positions? For that matter,
what would happen to every other contry which lost its great minds?

As long as there are no equilibrium in the geography of great education

institutions, there would only be the reproduction of the unequal creation and
distribution of prosperity in society that state oriented economies have created."
[Edit
Edit]]

Counter-arguments
• Argument: Internationalized education is necessary to producing global problem-
solvers - This is a counter-argument only in the sense that developing countries
are part of the global village, and will benefit from their most talented students
receiving the best education possible and benefiting the world as global leaders.
• Argument: Home countries will always benefit from sending their students abroad
HTTP://DEBATEPEDIA.IDEBATE.ORG/EN/INDEX.PHP/ARGUMENT:_HOME
_COUNTRIES_WILL_ALWAYS_BENEFIT_FROM_SENDING_THEIR_STUDE
NTS_ABROAD

Argument: Home countries will always

benefit from sending their students
abroad
From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

[Edit
Edit]]

Parent debate
• Debate archive: Governments and universities everywhere should compete to
attract qualified students regardless of nationality or residence

[Edit
Edit]]

Supporting quotes from the Economist Debate Series

• mahmuda ruby, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 16, 2007
16:50 - "A qualified student in the future can contribute to the development of
U.S.A. as well as to their own country and also in world development. On the
other hand, all qualified students from poorer countries do not come or stay in
USA. Some students naturally stay in their own countries. So, ultimately it do not
damage the chances for development of poorer country. Poorer countries have a
lot more major problems than this."

• milci, commenter. Economist Debate Series, Education 2. December 14th, 2007 -

"Nothing better can happen to the host and to the mother country of a student who
goes to study to a foreign country. He will be an ambassador of his country while
studying. If he goes home he will take his new experiences - good or bad - home
 and thus enrich his society. If he stays on to work in the host country he will
enrich that countries society with his knowledge of his home country."

• feerdaus, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 11, 2007 06:41
- "For small countries such as Singapore, the ageing of its population and
insufficent local talent has forced the authorities to 'import' talented students from
around the world. Although the effects of draining talent from poorer countries
can be negative, it is important to take note that the experience gained overseas
can help the country the student came from in many ways."

• arsalan akmal, commenter. The Economist Online Debate Series. December 11,
2007 22:45 - "I am in favor of students to cross their borders for the sake of
gaining knowledge. It not only opens up the thinking ability but one can do
wonders for the society when they return back from foreign countries."

• Art Teacher, commenter. The Economist Online Debate Series. December 20,
2007 13:56 - "I want to refute the validity of this brain-drain. I can't deny its
existance because I have no statistics on hand that would prove anything. But, just
in principle, it seems strange to me that anyone who left his country for an
education, and then moved to the US or the UK, would really sever their ties to
their home country and family. I've heard it happen, here in Slovakia. And yet,
when my wife moved to the states for her job, we ended up coming back to
Slovakia 4 years later. So, in my case, my marriage to a foreigner has resulted in
the both of us traveling back and forth repeated, getting a broader perspective of
the world. On top of this, there's money to be made in the developing world, as
with anywhere else. So long as there's a profitable idea out there, green or
otherwise, someone will capitalize on it - foreign capitalists ought to be able to
pick up the slack of any 'brain drain'.

I don't have any statistics, but I can reply to this statement: 'Notable examples are
developing nations such as India and China where this phenomenon has caused a
considerable number of brilliant students'"
These two countries have had the fastest growing economies on Earth for the last
decade or so. 'Nuff said?"
[Edit
Edit]]

Counter-argument
• Argument: "Brain drain" in developing countries is a cost of international
openness to foreign students
HTTP://DEBATEPEDIA.IDEBATE.ORG/EN/INDEX.PHP/ARGUMENT:_INTER
NATIONALIZED_EDUCATION_IS_NECESSARY_TO_PRODUCING_GLOBAL
_PROBLEM-SOLVERS

Argument: Internationalized education is

necessary to producing global problem-
solvers
From Debatepedia

Parent debate
• Debate archive: Governments and universities everywhere should compete to
attract qualified students regardless of nationality or residence

Supporting quotes from Economist Debate Series

• peter hsu, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 15, 2007
03:25 - "Very platonically imagine, after the stabilized stage of globalization
movement has been reached, there will be no boundary of nations, people can
select the environment and culture of his like on the Earth to enjoy his life. Before
of this, foreign-student policy will always be the concerns of these nations of
immigrated in and emigrated from, two opposite types of concern.

Once we could believe human evolution as well as economic growth has been
more and more relying on scientific research and it applications that evolution has
networked people into a smaller world; foreign-student policy is a kind of
concentrating process. An intellectual concentration process will keep the
momentum of the intellectual concentrated nations in higher evolution. This type
of concern is their average citizen losing the opportunity to share the resources of
 higher education in a nation; especially the resources are shared by migrant
students.
On the other hand, the nations of students emigrated from are losing the
momentum of evolvement, especially those qualified students immigrated in the
highly evolving nations.
Project the outcome of open foreign-student policy in a long run, also from the
perspective of globalization, every nation and every people included in the other
types of nations will also enjoy the advanced technologies derived from efficient
scientific research due to intellectual concentration."

• jammy, commenter. The Economist Online Debate Series. December 15, 2007
18:28 - "'Never knew a fellow I did'nt like' is human behavior, as Will Rogers
observed. What a leg up for the world if the bightest and most able liked each
other."

• Art Teacher, commenter. Economist.com Online Debate Series, Education 2.

December 14th, 2007 - "Right now our world is in a state of emergency, due to
overpopulation, disease, pollution, and political strife. We really can�€™t wait
to solve these problems, so it helps us all to give the best resources to the brightest
minds, and this has to be our overriding concern �€“ not which country�€™s
leading companies will earn the most dollars from such learning.The reality in
America is that the leading barriers to higher education of our nation�€™s
students are the lack of preparation and cost. Our k-12 schools are failing and this
is the direct result. Blaming and limiting foreign students won�€™t solve our
problems."

• Roby Widjaja, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series, Education Debate 2.

December 13, 2007 04:10 - "I am a pro to the idea that Governments and
Universities everywhere should compete to attract qualified students, regardless
of nationality or residence. Why ? [...] 5. Academic community should be a
community which give an unlimited access to any kind of knowledge and culture
of this world. We could not plant grape seed on corn field. If we want to grow
global leaders, we should prepare the soil for it, an academic community which
has a very diverse culture in it and, freedom of thinking and expression. Freedom
and Democratic atmosphere is the very best soil for intellectual based industries."

• Roby Widjaja, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series, Education Debate 2.

December 13, 2007 04:10 - "I am a pro to the idea that Governments and
Universities everywhere should compete to attract qualified students, regardless
of nationality or residence. Why ? [...] 5. Academic community should be a
community which give an unlimited access to any kind of knowledge and culture
of this world. We could not plant grape seed on corn field. If we want to grow
global leaders, we should prepare the soil for it, an academic community which
has a very diverse culture in it and, freedom of thinking and expression. Freedom
and Democratic atmosphere is the very best soil for intellectual based industries."
• dishant sharma, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 12, 2007
17:51 - "To servive in 21st century we want advancement in science and
technology to provide solutions for betterment of human life and solution for
global crisis on different issues.To develope such technologies we need smarter
and intellectual persons in academia and research,those can understand the
grassroot problem and contribute for solutions.So Universities and government
have to focus on intellectual qualities of individual for better future and for
growth of science& human race."...

• meadmaker, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 11, 2007

12:29 - "at a time when there is an indisputable need to tackle global problems,
the over-riding factor should surely be to persons that have been endowed by
nature with the best brains can exercise their talents in the best environment. As
far as academic establishments are concerned, scholars have always disregarded
national boundaries in their search for aquiring and exploiting knowledge. On this
basis the answer must be to vote FOR the motion."

• arsalan akmal, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 11, 2007
22:45 - "Denial of access to foreign qualification might result in wider
communication gap between the up coming generations which is very necessary
for creating harmony in this world."

• Frugal, commenter. Economist Debate Series. December 11, 2007 12:36 - "We
live in a global village with all its benefits and faults. After we have mastered "the
three Rs" in our national environment, it is essential that a wider range of
knowlege is attained through international exposure. And not just of the academic
variety. We need social and cultural life experience to prepare us for an ever more
complicated world. Despite the costs and the inherent risks described by the
Opposition, there can be no turning back. Like industrial health & safety, there
should be no secrets in global education."

• mkd2, commenter. Economist Online Debate Series. December 11, 2007 19:56 -
"I vote Pro. In considering the opening arguments we must bear in mind that it is
not all about discovering the holy grail by the best/brightest in the various
scientific disciplines at a few select institutions, but also the numerous underlying
'sub-discoveries' if you will, that undoubtedly will occur in many many others. I
see education evolving to become more thematic and clustered -- the best and
brightest will migrate to where today's leaders are. Today's foreign student could
be tomorrow's future leader literally anywhere in the world (and will attract
tomorrow's best/brightest). The best and brightest will remain so, regardless
where they choose to practice and their chosen field of study. The institution,
colleagues, future students, industry, community etc. all stand to benefit on many
levels from these individuals. Those institutions (in the larger sense of
community) who elect to accept those best and brightest they attract will be long
remembered and acknowledged. If we are truly talking of the best and brightest in
the global context, advocating for attracting these individuals supercedes the
 economic argument in favour of the cultural 'for the good of humanity' one. In
essence, there is also a huge potential for trickle-down effect of brilliance if we
are really referring to the best/brightest in the broadest sense of the word."

Counter-argument
• Argument: "Brain drain" in developing countries is a cost of international
openness to foreign students

The brain drain

US colleges losing foreign students
By Debra W. Stewart | May 8, 2005 or
HTTP://WWW.CGSNET.ORG/PORTALS/0/PDF/N_GLOBEBRAINDRAIN.PDF

For decades, the United States benefited from ready access to the most talented graduate
students on the planet. Our nation's campuses have welcomed students like Krastan Blagoev,
who came from Bulgaria to study physics at Boston College, Tadatoshi Akiba, who came from
Japan to study mathematics at MIT, and Mario Molina, who came from Mexico to study chemistry
at the University of California, Berkeley.
These international students often helped teach undergraduates, adding to their universities'
intellectual capital. They also conducted research while in graduate school, adding to our total
knowledge base. Following graduate school, many of these students remained in the United
States, becoming experts in their fields. Others returned home, often maintaining their ties to the
United States and becoming leaders in their own countries.
After earning his graduate degrees, Blagoev became a director of research at Los Alamos
National Laboratories. Akiba taught in the United States and then returned home to become
mayor of Hiroshima, Japan. Mario Molina joined the faculty at MIT and won the 1993 Nobel Prize
in Chemistry.
Until recently, so many foreign students flocked to US graduate schools that, overall, graduate
programs were receiving five international applications for every position. However, a tightening
of the visa process since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has discouraged many
international graduate students, either through visa delays or the misapprehension that they
would no longer be welcome in the United States.
As a result, foreign graduate school applications for 2005 have dropped 5 percent, following a 28
percent decline last year (see chart). Although the magnitude of the decline is not as dramatic as
last year, application volume has not returned to 2003 levels, and the direction overall remains
negative. If the trend continues downward, the lack of foreign graduate students could seriously
affect the continued quality of America's academic research. Such a trend may also signal a
change in the nation's status as the destination of choice for international students.
Concern about declining enrollments of foreign students in US graduate programs goes well
beyond university walls. Of the 1.4 million graduate students studying in the United States, 17
percent are international, but, more significant, in engineering non-US citizens make up over 50
percent of graduate enrollment, and in the physical sciences over 40 percent. As research
assistants, these international students are key players in producing the research and innovation
on which a prosperous US economy and domestic job creation depend. And many of these
students who have remained in this country compose a significant portion of US research faculty;
others work in research and development in the private sector. Students who return home often
emerge as political and business leaders who are well-inclined toward US interests.
The federal government has a daunting challenge. In an era of global terrorism and anti-American
sentiments abroad, it must balance national security measures with the need to create a more
hospitable climate for foreign-born scholars. Recent federal changes that extend foreign student
2
visas from one to four years are a promising sign, but even so, it's possible that the period of
easy access to international students in the physical sciences and engineering is simply over.
Thirty years ago the United States annually produced the vast majority of the world's doctoral
degrees. But in 1999, Europe surpassed US production of PhDs in science and engineering by
more than 2,000 scholars. Asia, too, is rapidly closing its gap in doctoral production, with the
governments of China, India, and Korea heavily investing in capacity at the graduate level.
Meanwhile, European countries are harmonizing their systems of education to make their
degrees even more portable, flexible, and accessible to students in countries from which the
United States has traditionally drawn students.
This competition is one of many reasons why we as a nation must actively recruit the best and
the brightest from across the globe. But, because competition from abroad will only grow stronger
over time, we must also redouble our efforts to develop our own domestic talent pool. Whereas in
the mid-1970s, domestic students earned over three-quarters of the nation's PhD degrees in
science and engineering, today they earn a little more than half. If we are to change this trend,
universities must develop better strategies for the recruitment, retention, and degree completion
of US students. This is particularly so for minorities and women, who are underrepresented in the
fields most likely affected by a drop in international enrollments.
One way to increase the number of graduate students, domestic or foreign, is to lower the
dropout rate. Right now, nearly 50 percent of all students who begin doctoral programs do not
earn degrees. The reasons for such high attrition rates are numerous: uneven program funding,
uncertain post-degree career options, or a poor fit between student and chosen field of study. But
think of this: Even if the United States graduates only those students we admit to PhD programs,
our nation will make great progress in building a stronger workforce and continuing the flow of
US-trained R&D leaders and entrepreneurs.
Today, graduate deans addressing the double challenge of low numbers and high attrition are
being joined in their efforts by corporate America. For example, Pfizer, one of the nation's leading
pharmaceutical companies, has helped launch the PhD Completion Project, a joint effort on
behalf of US universities and corporate America to increase the PhD completion rates of students
from underrepresented groups, especially minorities and women.
The project has provided awards averaging $70,000 to 21 universities to create intervention
strategies and pilot projects designed to boost doctoral completion rates. To do this, graduate
schools and programs are implementing new practices in several areas, such as: student
selection and admissions, financial support, and mentoring and advising. One anticipated result
of this project will be replicable strategies for increasing the production of minority PhDs in
sciences, engineering, and mathematics..
But this is not enough. The proportion of the US college-aged population earning degrees in
science and engineering in 2004 was lower than 16 countries in Asia and Europe. For the United
States to improve, a long-term vision is needed to address the many issues surrounding the
international flow of human capital. We must invest at all levels of our educational system, but
graduate education in particular is key to preparing the country's workforce to succeed in this new
knowledge economy.
If manufacturing and service jobs are now migrating off-shore, research may not be far behind. If
we are to succeed in the new global economy, the United States must maintain its claim to R&D
leadership. With an expanding immigrant population, a large pool of underrepresented minority
talent, and progressive movement in the direction of gender equity, the United States has the
diverse population and the social infrastructure to remain a leader in the knowledge-based
economy. But to sustain that leadership, we must redouble our efforts, recognizing that graduate
education is the engine that will drive our economic competitiveness.
During the Sputnik era, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy launched the National Defense of
Education Act, which aimed to increase our national security and economic competitiveness
through funding of a variety of programs, particularly graduate fellowships. America's leadership
in scientific discovery and innovation for the last 50 years is due in part to this program. Today we
must develop a new National Defense Education Act for the 21st century, one that renews our
national commitment to science, scholarship and security.
Proposals along these lines are emerging. The Department of Defense's 2006 budget request
includes $10.3 million for a new National Defense Education Program to provide scholarships and
fellowships to undergraduate and graduate students entering critical scientific and foreign
language fields. Fellowships would be awarded in return for a commitment of national service
after the completion of studies.
But a more comprehensive, long-term agenda is still needed. Enhanced public diplomacy abroad
should be combined with aggressive steps at home to broaden participation. Only by assuring
that we continue to attract the best international students and expand opportunities for domestic
students will we have the brainpower to sustain our prosperity.
Debra W. Stewart is president of the Council of Graduate Schools in Washington, D.C.