Search News


Browse Archives

News

Any Advice About Visas?

February 8, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Research and Science Education heard recommendations Thursday for easing the visa process for foreign students and scholars in its first hearing on the subject since 2004. “Happily,” said the committee chairman, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), “there’s been progress in the interim. That progress is gratifying, but also we’ll hear today constructive suggestions for improvement.”

Foreign student enrollment is again increasing in the United States – by 3.2 percent in 2006-7 over the previous year, according to Institute of International Education data – after dramatic post-September 11 drops. In his testimony, Stephen A. “Tony” Edson, deputy assistant secretary of state for visa service, said that the U.S. Department of State issued 10 percent more business, student and exchange visitor visas in 2007 than in 2006. And in cities known for sending large numbers of students to the U.S., like Beijing and Mumbai, the number of student visas processed in 2007 over 2006 grew by 38 and 55 percent, respectively. “We’re working diligently to streamline the process,” Edson said, stressing the need to foster exchange while upholding a commitment to national security.

To that effect, Edson explained several steps the department has taken, including new guidelines issued in January letting consular officers waive the interview requirement for some categories of visa renewal applicants who already have their fingerprints on file and have been through the interview process. Edson also stressed a commitment to reducing processing time and wait time for interviews, which he said is now 30 days or less at 90 percent of locations. Since September of 2001, the federal government has created 570 new consular positions.

Yet, while panelists applauded some of the improvements – the waiver of interviews for some renewal applicants, in particular – they pointed to further improvements needed, on statutory and regulatory levels. Among the suggestions:

  • Key among them: the need for the State Department to reissue visas domestically rather than require students and scholars to leave the country for renewal. “We cannot overemphasize the fear that people have in returning home or outside the U.S. to have their visa stamped,” said Catheryn Cotten, director of the international office for Duke University and the Duke Medical Center and Health System. “Once they arrive here, they are very frightened to go back. They’re afraid that this time, they won’t get their visa stamped." In response, the State Department indicated that back in the 1990s, it had allowed some visa renewal applicants -- but never students – to reapply without leaving the country. It stopped doing so in 2004 due to the legislative requirement that visa applicants submit "biometric" information (like fingerprints). “The Department's Inspector General had also called for an end to the program due to concerns about fraud, concerns shared by the Bureau of Consular Affairs and [The Department of Homeland Security.]”
  • Panelists also focused on improving foreign students’ experiences at border security checkpoints. (Representative Baird said that DHS officials were invited to Thursday’s hearing, but that witnesses were unavailable.) Allan E. Goodman, IIE’s president and CEO, said that the organization, which administers the Fulbright Program for the State Department, has offered to provide training to Homeland Security border officials relative to international students at no cost to DHS. (The organization offers similar training for consular officers at the Foreign Service Institute.) IIE is waiting on the agency's approval.
  • Cotten, of Duke, argued that restrictions on professors and research scholars on J-1 visas limit collaborative research. While she said that the visas allow researchers to stay in the country for up to five years if they participate continuously in the program, if they return to their home country during that time to continue research, they are barred for two years from returning to the United States as scholars.
  • Several panelists pointed to the need to revise, or even eliminate, the requirement that student visa applicants prove that they don’t intend to immigrate, citing a lack of clarity and inherent judgment call the question requires of its asker. Edson, of the State Department, said that the requirement has served as an effective screen for barring entry to less serious students who don't speak adequate English or know what they plan to study.

Committee members repeatedly lamented that the issue of improving the visa system for foreign students and scholars gets tied up in the intransigent immigration debates. Clearly a “friendly committee,” in Representative Baird’s words, to the issue as presented through the eyes of the educational establishment, many representatives on the science panel seemed frustrated by the status quo -- despite the State Department’s reported progress.

Acknowledging that perceptions of a burdensome visa process and sometimes humiliating border crossing experience have hurt the United States' ability to attract foreign students, committee members consistently returned to the point that even one horrific incident at airport security can cause severe harm to the United States' reputation. "One anecdote circulates rapidly and widely and tarnishes an entire image," Goodman said.

“I think we are all aware of the impacts that this can have on universities and scientific progress, but the human factor is often overlooked,” said Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Michigan), the ranking member on the committee. He recalled how, during his days studying (nuclear physics) at the University of California at Berkeley, scientists across the country “were eager to get Russian scientists into our nation.”

“And the Soviet government wouldn’t let them go. We thought, ‘This is horrible.’ Now it’s reversed.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Any Advice About Visas?

  • Posted by Green Card on February 8, 2008 at 8:35am EST
  • Congress and INS could speed things up the same way they do for processing Green Cards - simply have them pay $1,000 for expedited processing to cross the border more quickly. That way it is not bribery (although it is perceived as such here and abroad), it is expedited processing. Of course this money does not go to individuals but rather the system to help pay for the additional individuals required to expedite processing.

    Simple as changing the defination of "bribe.

  • visa advice
  • Posted by theron on February 8, 2008 at 9:05am EST
  • Part of the problem lies in the system and the expectations of people in the system.

    When I was attending NAFSA conferences, I made it a point to meet with and listen to INS and State Department officers. In one large meeting with ambassadors from India and Chia, I heard the state Department officals explain that in India and China they assume all student visa applicants are trying to cheat and thus the applicants must prove they are not.

    Secondly, a State Department official explained that consular sections are the entry-level positions; anyone with a career in mind tries to be promoted quickly out of those positions. This process leads to quick turnovers and lack of interest in doing the job. It leads to the personal judgements and snap decisions mentioned in the article.

    Even the advent of SEVIS, started before 9/11 to target only international students (at that time) suggests the attitudes of the State Department and INS/ICE...an attitude that still exists.

    No matter what the law, unless the system and the people involved support international education, visas will still be a problem and the fear noted in the article will continue. Most international student advisors can relate horror stories...and can point to ports of entry in the USA to avoid even now. Unless this fact of life changes, no amount of hearings will make any difference at all.

  • Posted by Jim on February 8, 2008 at 9:15am EST
  • Gee

    Whenever we talk about international people and their issues about coming to the US for education purposes, I start to wonder.

    We are told constantly about how great the educational systems are elsewhere in the world. If these systems are so much better, why do students want to even come to the US?
    Could it be they are not wanted in their own countries or others? Or that the cost of education in the homeland is to expensive?

    I have to wonder what is to be gained by the American Education system, in allowing international students to attend our Universities? I guess it has to do with diversification.

    I have worked in both the public and private sector of higher education, in both cases international students attended the colleges at a reduced tuition rate, in other words they received scholarships, sometimes equaling total cost of attendance. Also on the average the international students received more aid then did the in state students who attended these schools. This was not federal or state aid it was institutional aid. My question is why?

    This is not just an isolated case. Most universities subsidized their international students to a greater extent then their in state students, also when you figure what it cost to run an international operation from admissions to graduation, the sum is very high.

    If congress wants to investigate something, this would be a 'gem' of an idea. Why do colleges and universities support international students financially when they will not do the same for students who reside within 6 blocks of the school?

    This can be debated all day long. There is no answer, one could say it is the mission of the school, etc. But is it really, to spend resources on educating international students at the expense of not educating US students?

  • Changes needed in Visa policy
  • Posted by William Fish , President at Washington International Education Council on February 8, 2008 at 9:35am EST
  • Several changes are urgnetly needed in our policy for granting student visas:
    1. Allow for visa issuance within the United States for students who are already here. Students are often afraid to return to their home country because they can not predict how long visa processing will take or even whether they will be granted a new visa to return to the US.
    2. Give Consular Offices discretionary power
    on requiring a visa interview for students who have travelled home while enrolled as full time students. Interviews would only be required where there is a specific concern.
    3. Give Consular Officers discretionary power over all interviews. Once an individual has recorded the finger prints at the Embassy, they should only be required to come in for an interview if there is a specific concern. Fingerprints must match at the port of entry, so there is no danger of an unknown person entering the country. It makes little sense to be requiring an interview of a 19 year old with a solid educational background who has been admitted for study in the US when they are coming from most countries of the world. Requiring the interview forces the applicant to travel to the few cities where the interviews are conducted often adding hundreds and even thousands of dollars to the cost of an education in the US. That is on top of the none-refundable $231. a student visa applicant must pay, without any assurance they will even be granted the visa.

  • To Jim
  • Posted by Maria on February 8, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • I could not believe that someone working (even for a short time) in the area of higher education would claim that money invested in foreign students is in vain and should be investigated! This is America!
    All, besides the Amrican Indians, are from foreign ancestry! This is why America is attractive to all nations - BECAUSE IT GIVES OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL ("liberty and justice", remember?)
    I am a Doctoral Student in Higher Education Leadership - originally from BULGARIA and ... NO, I was not made to leave my own country; I came because I knew I would be appreciated for my gifts and abilities... apparently not by you. Too bad! How fortunate for the U.S. education that you are not in charge of their foreign affairs! : ) LOL

    Still amazed by your ignorance (or… could it be extreme dislike of immigrants, Jim?),
    Maria

  • Posted by jim on February 8, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • Maria,

    I'm sorry you feel that I'm anti-anything. I am not.

    What international education becomes is an economic decision that an institution has to make in spending their 'scarce resources."

    When an institution makes these decisions, there is a cost to that decision. It is an opportunity cost, which is the cost of not chosing the alternative. Hopefully, they have done a cost benefit analysis on this decision.

    In the case of funding international studies programs, an institution decides to use 'scarce resources' thus limiting the amount of scarce resources for other needs.

    For example, we have many students coming out of high school today wanting to attend college, but they are either under prepared to do so financially or academically or both.

    An institution could use its 'scarce resources' to help more of these students. Student who live, work and were educated in this society.

    My guess is when the NY Attorney General gets done with his investigation of international programs, the public will know more about how and why these programs are funded.

    If John Q. Public knew that international studies were being funded and that there were other students not receiving the resources they needed, I believe these international studies would be in trouble from a funding point of view.

    Subsidies ( for international studies) are nice as long as they can be afforded, but for every use of a scarce resource, the is a loss somwhere else.

    I am not taking a 'short view' or an 'anti-view' this is a realistic question that needs to be raised.

    Lastly, I have been in this 'industry' for 18 years. I have a doctorate, all degress paid for by me. I have never discriminated against anyone. That is not what this is about, it is about institutional resources, fairness in allocation, and how do you answer the question of "why do you fund interantional students, when you won't fund ths student across the street?"

    As I said previously, there are no good answers.

    Have a good day.

  • Posted by james oloo on February 8, 2008 at 12:40pm EST
  • JIM,

    You have got it twisted. I find it strange that you have worked in the higher education system but do not see the benefit of international students to America.

    First, not all international students get funding. The ones who do tend to be grad students. Second, in most American institutions, for every $100 US students pay in tuition, visa students pay between $160 and $210. Remember that some of these institutions are in the business of making profit.

    US has world class universities. So, some of the students who come to the States do so as an investment; not necessarily because there is not enough spaces for them in their home universities.

    I'm sure you know that many US universities hold 'education fairs' overseas to attract international students. Surely, they do not do this for charity.

    Last, pay attention to your spellings and grammar.

    - James Oloo

    Many institutions in the US have upto 20% of their faculty (i.e., professors) holding passports of countries other than USA. It is called globalization of higher education.

  • VISAS (and for Jim)
  • Posted by Max on February 8, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • Who knew attracting international students would be such a controversial issue? I just assumed that it was a good thing.

    It is really unfortunate that international students are facing these problems in gaining access to American higher education. In a time when the United States' international reputation is at an all-time low, globalising U.S. institutions has become all that more important. In order for the U.S. to gain its credibility back, it must continue to engage in 'public diplomacy.'

    One way to do this is to let international students gain access to our education and discover what America is all about. Conversely, exposing American students to international students can only help Americans expand their horizons as well. Why do you think there is so much conflict in the world? -A major lack of understanding between people, cultures, and governments.

    The other reason to allow students into the U.S. is purely economic. While some international students benefit from subsidized tuition fees, their economic impact extends beyond that. Students need places to live, eat, and play. That brings wealth to the community, which is great for America. Education is an export industry, and America should continue to embrace that.

    If America wants to remain as "progressive" as it projects itself to be, international students and researchers are a must! If this visa dilemma continues, and more and more international academics are turned off by U.S. policy, America will only continue this downward spiral of international unpopularity.

  • Jim's Experience and Mine are Very Different
  • Posted by Ed in Admissions on February 8, 2008 at 5:00pm EST
  • Jim,

    In my 35 years in higher education I have worked for seven institutions. They included a nationally ranked liberal arts college, a state supported research institution, comprehensive universities and an art school.
    I have held admissions/financial aid positions at these schools.

    My experience has been the polar opposite of your experience. International students not only do not receive financial aid at these schools( with the exception of a few "token" academic merit or artistic merit scholarships) they generally pay higher tuition ( at public universities) and higher fees (for services such as ESL courses, etc.)
    at the independent colleges. These schools and many others see international students as largely "full-pay" students and as such they generate more revenue which in turn can be used to give financial aid to the students who live"six blocks" from the college.

    My current institution has 172 inetrnational student. About 40 of those students received scholarships totalling less than $40,000. Do the math and you will see these students help the college financially to say nothing of what they bring to the college culturally and educationally and socially. Our domestic students learn much from our international students as does our faculty and staff.

  • Jim Is Right To Question This
  • Posted by Scrawed on February 8, 2008 at 9:15pm EST
  • Sorry, folks, but Jim's right to question our current policies and prevailing attitudes toward international student participation in US educational institutions.

    First, with the two largest contributors of international students to the US, India and China at a distant second, application fraud of all kinds - whether it be identity misrepresentation, transcript misrepresentation or falsification, or testing fraud, is higher in absolute numbers than with any other nations. This is unfortunate, but it is also very real, and this is what primarily accounts for the attitudes of consular officers dealing with international students from these countries.

    Second, as far as I am aware, there are no institutional "special charges" for international students. They may have to pay out-of-state tuition rates at public universities - but so do most US students that are not classified as state residents. This is NOT a special hardship or unfair imposition. Furthermore, it is my experience that many departments find TA or RA positions for many of these students and that out-of-state tuition waivers are a part of the compensation for these positions. Charges for provided ESL classes are legitimate when the students in question have not succeeded in mastering basic communication in the language of instruction. If you don't believe equivalent fees are charged to American students studying abroad, you are very much mistaken.

    Third, having significant percentages of foreign faculty isn't necessarily a cause for celebration. It's wonderful when merit is considered above national origin. It's abysmal when ethnic representation is put ahead of ability to teach in the language of instruction. The former happens, but the latter also happens.

    As record international student participation in US educational institutions coincides with "a time when the United States’ international reputation is at an all-time low," perhaps its time to acknowledge that there may not be a correlation, or that there may even be a negative correlation between the two. I will further observe that conflict in the world is usually born less often of ignorance than proximity and certain knowledge - and occurs most often between neighbors.

    As to the claim that education should (solely) be an export industry - this is sheer folly. Neither should it be an import industry. Our year-over-year increasing imports of international graduate students in engineering and increasingly in business have coincided with increased offshore outsourcing, and both decreased percentages and decreased absolute numbers of US citizens pursuing advanced study in these critical areas.

    I provide the following links, at least two of which provide other links which provide a balance of perspectives on this issue.

    http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/immigration/

    http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/scientist-shortages/

    http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/

    http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html

  • Posted by R.C. on February 11, 2008 at 12:35am EST
  • My experience has also been that many undergraduate international students pay their full way at an institution. Yes, graduate students often have GA/RA/TA appointments, but (with some exceptions) these are competitive positions that the students have earned. As many of our institutions strive to be 'world class,' they seek out the best and the brightest...in the world. Especially in the sciences, many of these are very talented international students who go on to make significant research contributions. The previous post brings up a chicken vs. egg argument...was it the dearth of U.S. talent drawing Asians students in the sciences to the U.S. or did the increase in international students cause the dearth? I have not seen a strong argument to support the latter. Again, if companies in a market economy supposedly hire the best, and that is an international student, it seems to me that there was a lack of U.S. student talent.

    In regards to Jim's post on finances, I am confident that you will find many schools have a net gain from the tuition dollars on international students, particularly undergraduate students, not the reverse. Yes, we are told about the excellent education systems overseas. This is usually in reference to K-12. U.S. universities, fed by tuition and endowments, are some of the top educational institutions in the world. Once they get past the language barrier, students from those countries with 'excellent education systems' are often above-average students because of their preparation.

    In regards to 'ESL abroad,' I am not aware of such programs. How many American students pay to go to classes to learn a language to get a *degree* at a foreign institution? Yeah, not enough to fill such an SL course abroad. Of course, you need to master a language to study in that country and it is justifiable to have to pay for this. I'm just saying that I don't believe the comparison to what U.S. students pay abroad is accurate.

  • Response to R.C.
  • Posted by Scrawed on February 11, 2008 at 6:10pm EST
  • R.C. comments that his "experience has also been that many undergraduate international students pay their full way at an institution." For two decades, however, I've heard the claim that student tuition is usually a fraction of actual institutional costs for providing tuition. The tuition that colleges charge is not typically enough to cover the cost of providing that education. George Borjas notes, "Gordon Winston, former provost of Williams College, estimates that the average per-student subsidy is $6,400 in private universities and $9,200 in public universities." Therefore "the 275,000 foreign students enrolled in public institutions are subsidized to the tune of $2.5 billion a year. This subsidy is so large that the foreign-student program may actually generate a net loss for the U.S." (George Borjas, "Rethinking Foreign Students," 2002).

    "As many of our institutions strive to be ‘world class,’ they seek out the best and the brightest...in the world." Like most consumption, this may be more perceptual than actual - particularly with the existence of fraud, involvement of "facilitating services" in the students' home countries, and both university operation and industry in this country - both of which have vested interests in a) reducing employment costs, and b) establishing institutional links abroad. Although "many of these" (but certainly not even the majority) "are very talented international students who go on to make significant research contributions" one should consider the impact of institutional support on this outcome.

    "Once they get past the language barrier, students from those countries with ‘excellent education systems’ are often above-average students because of their preparation." However, there are issues with TOEFL assessment and international student functioning in discourse environments that OUGHT to require high levels of language fluency - issues that include everything from basic miscommunication, inability to communicate on topical issues to plagiarism. For examples of the latter, see reportage on both the Fuqua scandal last year and the exposure of long-running plagiarism practices by international students at the University of Ohio's graduate ME program in 2005.

    http://lu.ceat.okstate.edu/thesisplagiarism.htm

    On other countries' "excellent education systems," most of our international students come from India and the PRC (a distant second) - both of which are countries that have problems with literacy rates and the provision of equal educational opportunity. America consistently condemns its students on the basis of the performance of a highly inclusive average, whereas it consistently praises Indian and Chinese students on the basis of the performance of the comparative economic elite in those countries. This serves the purposes of crisis-funding oriented education lobbies, labor-hostile business lobbies, and national emigration lobbies. Hence an Anglo American testing in the 2200-2300 range on GREs is another "dumb American," whereas an international student with aggregate GREs of 1500 is "brilliant with a language barrier." There is a real problem with racial prejudice and ethnic stereotyping in our graduate schools and our broader society as well when this is allowed to happen.

    As regards international students in other countries (not just Americans studying abroad - and yes, there often are enough to fill whole second-language courses), usually they are required to take language courses in the host countries' official language of instruction or (when not required) find such courses useful or even necessary. And, yes, they generally have to pay for them, as well as various institutional international student fees and visa-related fees. Often such students are kept at arm's length or to a certain extent ghettoized, in stark contrast to the level of inclusion present in American institutions (where sometimes, it is the Americans that are not welcome). Not many American students take degrees at foreign institutions, but that has a great deal to do with the fact that the market value of most non-US degrees is not high in the US or even anywhere outside the nation in question. There are a few exceptions, which tend to be comparatively expensive and located in the English-speaking world and Western Europe. Even among these there are horror stories (the DPhil holder who was turned down for a tenure-track position because of his lack of a PhD, for example). Therefore the typical model for American students has usually been time-limited study abroad under the aegis of a qualifying degree-granting institution in the US, which helps ensure usable degree credit - and this drives costs up for the participating student - not down.

  • A critique of R.C.'s fallacious logic
  • Posted by Rob on February 14, 2008 at 9:35pm EST
  • R.C.'s argument contains a number of misconceptions and faulty logic that are common among those who clamor for unlimited admission of foreign students over Americans.

    For starters, his question "was it the dearth of U.S. talent drawing Asians students in the sciences to the U.S. or did the increase in international students cause the dearth?" contains a logical fallacy that should be obvious to anyone who has completed an English 101 course. R.C.'s question contains the assumption that there is a "dearth" of U.S. talent in science in the first place.
    In my years as a student and practitioner of science, I have not seen a lack of interest or talent among Americans about science. I routinely see many young Americans in high school and college who aspire to be scientists and are passionate about exploring their curiosity about the natural world.
    What I have seen, however, is an increasing difficulty in these young aspiring scientists to fund their education, especially post-graduate education, and to find employment after graduation that affords them a reasonable lifestyle. With increasing student-loan demands and the willingness of foreign scientists to work for near minimum wage, many Americans are abandoning the science and engineering because they do not provide stable and well-paying employment that they once did.

    So, R.C., you claim that there was a dearth at all is false - in reality there is a *glut* of science talent in America, due in part to the U.S. admitting so many people from overseas.

    A perfect example of the falsity of RC's claim is to look at the level of competitiveness for admission into science and engineering graduate programs at U.S. universities. Over the course of my career (and since the time when my baby-boomer parents went to college), competition for admission to science graduate programs has increased remarkably. If R.C.'s assumption of a "dearth" of science talent were true, this would not be the case and graduate programs would see *increasing* admissions rates as they experience a shrinking applications/space ratio.

    What I would like to see from people like R.C. is a strong argument as to WHY he believes U.S. talent in science has dropped so dramatically. The U.S. dominated science throughout the post-WWII period, through the 1950s and 60s, making some of the most incredible strides in human history such as the moon landings and the developments in electronic and computers.

    But, if we are to believe in a "dearth" of talent in the 1980s, then this implies that America experienced a massive decline in science talent in less than two decades. The question is Why?
    Of all the people who make the same argument as R.C., I have yet to find a single one who can provide a satisfactory answer to this question.

  • Posted by Shyanmei on February 19, 2008 at 5:40pm EST
  • Once my classmate in my MSED program commented on increasing number of international students earning accounting degree..."that is because you guys (to me, an international student) are willing to do the dirty work." I guess that is one reason for international student recruitment?

  • You Mean Like These?
  • Posted by Scrawed on February 21, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • Shyanmai -

    When you talk about recruiting international students because "they're willing to get their hands dirty" - do you mean students like the following?

    http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1123&p=report&a=1

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-01/25/content_6420877.htm

    http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14598820