Join Debatepedia's Facebook group! | News: Next on Debate Digest: War on Drugs
See Debatepedia's resources for the Spring 2010 The People Speak Global Debates on climate change adaptation

From Debatepedia

Parent debate

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

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."

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