The question, is these bright minds never spent 10 years at MIT or Harvard, and instead spent it at Peking University, would be they be of the same caliber?
As someone who went to the number one school in a 3rd world country and one the top universities in the US, I'd say those people would be of the same or better technical or academic caliber. Although they will most definitely not have the same connections or opportunities afterwards (which is where the most value at elite schools is).
It's harder to get into the top university in China than at MIT and Harvard. To think otherwise suggests a myopic view of the world.
Corollary: it's more prestigious to have done your bachelor's education at Tsinghua University than at MIT or Harvard. The top students in China do their Bachelor's degree in China. The ones who don't get into the top universities and have money are sent overseas.
Not that it isn't a good university, I mean I hear decent things, but two Nobel laureates is really not that much for a top university. Many local European universities have more.
Probably not. However, does it matter? If we take some of the best and brightest from China and make them even better, why would it matter if they'd otherwise be still some of China's best and brightest but less well trained? Regardless the US wins and China loses very talented people.
Probably not? Sounds like someone hasn’t mingled with other countries elites. Yikes.
If I’m allowed to sterotype, I’d get the russian math major and the American business major for sales, a Swedish HR and some Polish coders.
It matters if they return to China with their American education and:
-engage in nation-state attacks on behalf of the PLA [1], or
-build facial-recognition software to further repress the Uyghur community [2], or
-contribute to the "social credit" system which makes it next-to-impossible for everyday Chinese to express anything other than unvarnished support of the ruling party [3], or
-eavesdrop on advocates for democracy in Hong Kong [4], or
-build advanced weapons systems that are then installed on newly-constructed islands in the South China Sea [5], or
-conduct industrial espionage on behalf of Chinese companies with key government contacts or PLA-connected C-level execs [6], or
-participate in advanced research projects like quantum satellites which could give China a persistent strategic advantage against the NSA [7], or
-install facial recognition technology in primary-school and middle-school classrooms to enhance indoctrination methods at an earlier age [8], or
-any other number of future scenarios we haven't even discussed.
I'm not saying every overseas Chinese student fits this description. While living in Shanghai for almost 6 years, I encountered quite a few that were open to democratic ideals and skeptical of their government's propaganda. However, there is also a non-trivial amount of nationalism among everyday Chinese, and the CCP is capable of directing it against the US anytime it sees fit, through its monopoly of mainland media outlets (and increasingly, non-mainland ones as well) [9].
I don't pretend to have a solution to this problem. But I think it may be short-sighted to expect Chinese students to be wooed by the wonders of democracy after a short-term study-abroad program in a country whose democracy is flawed at best.
Not sure what “two minutes hate” refers to, but whether there is an American analog or not is irrelevant. Or at least, it’s irrelevant from the perspective of the American foreign policy officials who craft the student visa rules which we’re discussing.
When discussing foreign policy officials and visa rules, Orwell is probably going to come up fairly regularly as a common point of reference. Is from the book 1984.
For a more overt manifestation, just take a look at how the US treats ex-convicts: Public shaming by releasing mug-shots, some states even revoking their right to vote among other rights, de-facto turning them into second-grade citizens for life.
Thanks to the HN readers who defined "two minutes hate".
I think some readers of my original comment may be misunderstanding it. To clarify, I am happy to go into an equal level of detail about the many ills of American hegemony:
-False claims about WMD as a pretext for war against Iraq, resulting in an estimated 460,000 deaths [1]
-Four centuries of slave trade, which forced millions of people into bondage, resulted in a number of deaths ranging from 1.5 million to 5 million people, tore countless families apart, and continues to have socioeconomic consequences to this day, both in America and Africa. [2]
-The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan during WWII, which indiscriminately targeted civilians and killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 people in Nagasaki. [3]
-Countless examples of backing authoritarian rulers friendly to US interests and engaging in "regime change", including the 1953 Iran coup [4], Fulgencio Basista in Cuba [5], and currently supporting 73% of regimes classified as "dictatorships" by Freedom House. [6]
-The idea of "manifest destiny" [7] as a justification to lay claim to territory that was already occupied, resulting in the deaths of 80-98% of native peoples as the result of diseases like smallpox, as well as outright genocide. [8]
-American involvement in the Vietnam War, which killed between 1-4 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. [9]
-Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and so-called "black sites", where non-US citizens are held without trial and subject to human rights abuses. [10]
-Mass surveillance conducted by the US government, including on its own people, resulting in an unknowable number of civil liberties violations. [11]
I mention all of the above in order to (hopefully) establish the fact that I am not simply "reading off the script of the two minutes hate." Or if I am, at least I'm reading off both sides' scripts.
That said, my original point still stands. I obviously have no data on the percentage of visa applicants who plan to use their education for ill vs good. In fact, I'm even willing to stipulate that the vast majority of those applicants fall into the more well-intentioned category. However, _if_ (and this is a big if) the intention of a student visa applicant is to commit acts which (hopefully) we can all agree are antithetical to basic human rights, and _if_ an American education would make them relatively more effective at doing so, then we all have an interest in stopping them from succeeding. That is true regardless of whether they do so on behalf of the CCP, the US government, a private corporation, etc. And importantly, whether there are American analogues to China's actions has no bearing on this point. It's pure whatabout-ism, and is a distraction from the point at hand.
I'm emphatically _not_ advocating for the repeal of student visas for Chinese applicants (I personally think this is a bad idea overall). I'm simply responding to another reader's question, "does it matter (if visa applicants study in the US or elsewhere)?". The point I'm making is that it might matter very much, and that exposure to or immersion in American democracy is not a panacea, especially when that democracy has significant and chronic ills which prevent it from reaching its full potential.
Or if the US values are really better the students would bring their home, I am not sure how this phenomena is called but about 300 years ago when wealthy students from Romania went to study in France and return caused a big cultural improvement.