China Has More Than 1.2 Million Students Studying Abroad

April 18, 2011, 10:40 am

China had a record 1.27 million students studying abroad last year, says the country’s Ministry of Education, reports China Daily. The number of new students going abroad grew 24 percent from 2009, and the top 10 destinations are the United States, Australia, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Canada, Singapore, France, Germany, and Russia.

Enrollments of Chinese students at American universities shot up 30 percent during the 2009-10 academic year, and a 9-percent increase in applications from foreign students to graduate schools is also largely due to students from China.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

raza_khan

I would be interested in a data of overeas students for all countries. What also would be interesting is somewhat tracked data of how many of these overseas students return back to thier home country. An issue is where students do not return as to what we call “brain drain”.

Raza
_________________
Raza Khan, Ph.D.
beulah

Dear Raza:

You can find a lot of international student data from IIE’s Open Doors publications @ http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors

It’s really good stuff!

Later,
Alan
raza_khan

Thanks Alan. I will definitely check it out :) Much appreciated!

Raza
amberdru

http://www.iie.org/en/Research...

Where on this site does it give any data of return?

The 1996 immigration reform was suppose to track visas but it was never done.
How does the school know if anyone returns?
jamesebryan

Why is it that a playwright’s suitability for an honorary degree should be contingent upon his political opinions and actions? Shouldn’t his professional accomplishments and contributions be the criteria?

As an interesting comparison, William Morris, the great nineteenth-century author, critic, and designer, was considered as a candidate for Poet Laureate of England, a position in the royal household, AFTER he had become prominent for his socialist political activism. He declined rather than be connected to a political establishment with which he disagreed, but even so, it would seem that some Victorians could be more open minded than some of us today.
lexalexander

In this *particular* case, Kushner was being honored for his undeniable achievements as a playwright. That’s an academic decision from which the board of trustees would have been wiser to stay away. For all I know, Kushner could be a total jackass as a human being, but Bruce Springsteen has a response for that: Trust the song, not the singer.

In *general*, CUNY’s trustees appear to be well within their rights to overrule faculty with respect to honorary degrees. But that right ought to be exercised only in extreme cases — ones, say, in which new, directly relevant information comes to light that is substantially at odds with the basis on which the faculty decides to award an honorary degree. Mere differences of opinion, particularly on issues extraneous to the basis for that award, don’t meet this test. In light of this standard, I find Wiesenfeld’s position wrong and am pleased that last night CUNY board overturned its earlier decision.

And for the record, Peter Wood, I support Israel almost as much as I support this, my native country, but when the jackboot fits, you need to shut up and wear it. Questions of 1948 aside, the merits of what Israel is doing in Gaza TODAY wouldn’t even be debated if it were anyone but the U.S. or Israel doing it.
goxewu

The nut of Prof. Woods’s post is this: “It is not clear to me that a university board’s decision not to award
someone an honorary degree meets the definition of shabby treatment.”

It’s fallacious and he knows it–or certainly should know it.

If a list of proposed recipients of honorary degrees with Mr. Kushner’s name left off it had been forwarded to the Board and had the Board at OK’d that list, the “decision not to award someone an honorary degree” would not have constituted “shabby treatment.” But that wasn’t the problem. The problem was that Mr. Kushner’s name *was* on the list, a Board member tried to strike it on the grounds that Mr. Kushner’s opinions on Israel somehow disqualified him, and his attempt was made public.

To re-state it in language that even Prof. Woods should understand: Simply not awarding someone an honorary degree is not “shabby treatment”; publicly trying to prevent the awarding of the degree, on the basis of wholly irrelevant criteria, to someone who’s been proposed by the appropriate committee *is* “shabby treatment.”
goxewu

“The cascade of honors he receives from universities, as Wood notes, is
due at least as much to their self-congratulatory stance at sharing his
pieties as to his dramatic gift.”

Love it: “as Wood notes,” as if it’s a fact. An assertion, a guess, suspicion, or a stereotype (Oh, those liberal universities, handing out honorary degrees in self-congratulation to piety-sharers!), but hardly something one “notes.”