next »

[mayjohn]

Greetings,
This is a spin-off thread on the issue of a foreign-born teaching cohort.

It started after the following comment from fedscholar:

"This is an interesting phenomenon. I always thought that foreigners would come in and do what the locals will not. I did not assume that included working as TT at UC. Not to knock the foreign scholars, I am sure they are outstanding, but I wonder if the public is well served by having a majority of a teaching cohort foreign-born. I don't want to sound opinionated here, just pondering it. I am sure there are pros and cons to the foreign-born professoriate."

[lorelei]

Greetings,
This is a spin-off thread on the issue of a foreign-born teaching cohort.

It started after the following comment from fedscholar:

"This is an interesting phenomenon. I always thought that foreigners would come in and do what the locals will not. I did not assume that included working as TT at UC. Not to knock the foreign scholars, I am sure they are outstanding, but I wonder if the public is well served by having a majority of a teaching cohort foreign-born. I don't want to sound opinionated here, just pondering it. I am sure there are pros and cons to the foreign-born professoriate."

I'm not sure what to make of that. Has fedscholar never met a foreign-born professor? "Come in and do what the locals will not"??

Perhaps you've heard of these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Schama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana

[notaprof]

There are no national borders on knowledge.  I would think that any institution seeking to hire the best scholar available would often find a person from outside of our borders as that best scholar.  

Considering that the US ranks fairly far down the list in mastering science and math fields, I would not find it surprising that many faculty in those fields come from overseas.  In languages, we often look overseas to find native speakers.  I know most ESL students want their instructors to be native English speakers so it can be true in languages.  Area studies may often have someone from outside our borders who is the most remarkable scholar in the field.  I think higher education is one of the most open fields in terms of being able to work out immigration issues for scholars from outside our borders. In fact, many of the foreign born scholars you mention were actually educated in the US.  So these people are graduates of some of our most prestigious colleges and universities as well.  We have been quite happy to drain the brains from overseas for years.n  I would venture to guess that the majority of foreign born faculty were actually educated in the US (or the UK).

I think if you go back through posts over the years, in fact, you will see that there are barriers to people educated overseas for hiring in the US.  Many SCs don't understand other educational systems so there can be a perceived disadvantage for those educated outside the US system.  We tend to look down on the education provided in many places overseas.

Any way, count me as a fan of hiring the person most qualified, no matter where they were born or where they were educated.  I think anything else might be problematic or at least a slippery slope to a very insular world view.  

[the_honey_badger]

I was confused by the post on the other thread that mentioned "promoting education" when states are in a period of "crisis."  I'm not sure what that means---college professors hitting the road to lecture on the benefits of going to UC or CSU rather than out-of-state colleges?  How often does that happen in reality?  In all the financial crises I've been around, the only think the faculty have been asked to do is take cuts in pay and benefits or to stop xeroxing.

And, to jump on the previous post:  I would guess that in 1957 in New Jersey that German Einstein would have recruited more students in state than some relative unknown physicist who was native born.

My guess is that the majority of foreign-born scholars at UC falls in two categories: those pulling in big grant money and those who are internationally known scholars in a non-grant-funded discipline.  In that case the "market" has spoken in a way about who the "excellent" scholars are.

[prytania3]

And, to jump on the previous post:  I would guess that in 1957 in New Jersey that German Einstein would have recruited more students in state than some relative unknown physicist who was native born.

Yes, Princeton has always had a tough time with recruitment.

[alleyoxenfree]

I was confused by the post on the other thread that mentioned "promoting education" when states are in a period of "crisis."  I'm not sure what that means---college professors hitting the road to lecture on the benefits of going to UC or CSU rather than out-of-state colleges?  How often does that happen in reality?  In all the financial crises I've been around, the only think the faculty have been asked to do is take cuts in pay and benefits or to stop xeroxing.

And, to jump on the previous post:  I would guess that in 1957 in New Jersey that German Einstein would have recruited more students in state than some relative unknown physicist who was native born.

My guess is that the majority of foreign-born scholars at UC falls in two categories: those pulling in big grant money and those who are internationally known scholars in a non-grant-funded discipline.  In that case the "market" has spoken in a way about who the "excellent" scholars are.

The comment, if it was mine, was about supporting public education.  There is a great deal that professors might do to support public education in a state, from lobbying the state legislature, conducting teach-ins or providing information to students, working with non-profits and interest groups on specific solutions, working with businesses to improve the economy of that particular state, hence restoring the tax base and the universities themselves.  There are social contracts to education that do not necessarily inhere in all who might be employed there.  As an example, I'm thinking of going on a campus visit where the faculty questioned me quite rigorously, and rightly, about what I knew about how the academic senates worked there.  Some states, like California, built excellent reputations while still providing strong access.  Many academics don't give a fig about issues like the latter.

The either/or is a little easy (spectacular foreign-borns or obvious local duds and parochialism!), as are the solutions of the past decades such the easy answers that big names equal marketing equal top students equals good education.  Or that "we should recruit the best," as though this is easily and objectively measured.  That's why this topic seemed interesting to discuss at this economic time. 

[the_honey_badger]

Again, why would native-born professors be doing this?  My guess is to keep their institution open and funded. Wouldn't a foriegn-born professor have the same (financial) interest in keeping public universities at which they work open? 

I guess where I find this argument problematic is in the idea that native-born faculty/staff are assumed to have an attitude that values an abstract "good" in public education.  Just thinking of my (vast) majority faculty at my State U, most are products of private universities. Quite frankly, they value "public education" only because it employes them.

Lobbying the legislature by profs?  Actually illegal (either system policy or state law but as I recall its the latter) where I am now and was previously.  Teach-ins?  The only one on my campus was about the war in Iraq and  that was started by two foreign-born faculty members.  As to faculty senates---frankly, I find that a peculiar subject to grill an interviewee on.  How many of us out of grad school know much about those?  And, many, like myself, are in systems where the Faculty Senate has no power at all except to issue "statements" which are routinely ignored.

As to the idea that "recruiting the best" is really operative in all places in all searches?  I'm not that naive. My university has made it very clear in the current "crisis" (actually, our state budget is fine at the moment but they are raising the alarm and making cuts nevertheless) they want hires to come in with *money* for labs or programs.  The administration and the state legislature have decided that a "Pulitzer" in fiction or a million from NIH is the "objective standard" of excellence.  If it funds the department or it brings publicity: they don't care where you are born.

[fedscholar]

This topic seems particularly conducive to moralizing. However, let's avoid that. I don't think anyone was complaining about foreign scholars in general or doubting their merits and earnest contributions. And we all know examples of brilliant scholars that have immigrated. The backdrop for this discussion, rather, was that at the University of California, a recent trend proposed by ucprof has emerged of an overwhelming majority of foreign hires for new faculty positions. That's all I know; I will let ucprof clarify. I found that surprising, given the overproduction of PhDs throughout the US in most fields. No one, I believe, was afraid of foreigners or meant to discriminate in any way, but a hiring outcome where the professoriate does not reflect society, at least in broad terms, is the backdrop for discussion here. While some truly global discoveries have no boundaries, other fields do have a regional complexion. I think most would agree that the UC system should be open to international scholars, but it would seem odd to me if, say, 80% of UC Professors were foreign born.  I am just trying to point out we were discussing a (seemingly) unusual phenomenon, and ucprof thought it deserved a broader audience.

[lorelei]

This topic seems particularly conducive to moralizing. However, let's avoid that. I don't think anyone was complaining about foreign scholars in general or doubting their merits and earnest contributions. And we all know examples of brilliant scholars that have immigrated. The backdrop for this discussion, rather, was that at the University of California, a recent trend proposed by ucprof has emerged of an overwhelming majority of foreign hires for new faculty positions. That's all I know; I will let ucprof clarify. I found that surprising, given the overproduction of PhDs throughout the US in most fields. No one, I believe, was afraid of foreigners or meant to discriminate in any way, but a hiring outcome where the professoriate does not reflect society, at least in broad terms, is the backdrop for discussion here. While some truly global discoveries have no boundaries, other fields do have a regional complexion. I think most would agree that the UC system should be open to international scholars, but it would seem odd to me if, say, 80% of UC Professors were foreign born.  I am just trying to point out we were discussing a (seemingly) unusual phenomenon, and ucprof thought it deserved a broader audience.

I think you may be confusing the issue, which some other posters have alluded to. Yes, overproduction of PhDs in the US. But many of those graduating with PhDs from American universities are not Americans. This is the group I see getting hired, particularly in STEM fields. The hiring of foreign scholars with qualifications from foreign universities is a much smaller group.

So your comments about regionalism may seem less valid. If someone has been in the US doing the fieldwork and research for 5+ years, what does it matter (to their competence in the field) if they happen to have been born abroad? A number of scholars I know left their home countries to study in the US as undergrads, so by the time they hit the academic job market had been in the country for over a decade: not the FOB situation that some of the "foreign scholar" comments here implied.

[fedscholar]

Not sure what an "FOB" situation is,but I see your distinction between folks educated here and foreign-educated scholars.  I would agree that after 4-10+ years in the US, they would be indistinguishable in skills from domestic students. Thanks for the clarification.

[frogfactory]

.  I would agree that after 4-10+ years in the US, they would be indistinguishable in skills from domestic students.

Man, I hope not.

[alleyoxenfree]

To clarify, I'm not so much throwing thoughts into the skills pool, which is a separate question.  And I'm not weighing in against foreign-born scholars, so much as I was reacting to original posts on the other thread about the mass exodus of faculty from a state in financial trouble.  In some ways, that could be a good thing if it clears the deck of faculty who are here primarily to work in self-interested terms, and leaving behind those who - whether foreign-born or born here - are committed to rebuilding the state and its public institutions.  It's a question of values rather than skills.

As faculty, we are often slammed by the right-wing as liberal, yet are there faculty who - in their conduct - are not so different from bankers who, gifted with year-end bonuses provided by taxpayers, quit their firm and go elsewhere rather than take a pay cut or give back the bonus?  Do our professed values match our conduct?  These are questions that I struggle with personally.

[janewales]

Here, "foreign-born" usually means Americans. Canadian R1s like mine hire plenty of Americans trained in private R1s, and there's a definite culture shock for them in adjusting to what it means to be at a world-ranked research university which is, nevertheless, public and therefore strapped for cash and expecting a great deal in teaching and service, as well as in research. Canadians understand the system, while foreigners often don't-- but I still think we should be trying to hire the best people, full stop. It would be good, though, for everyone to be a little more aware of differences between academic cultures.

[mouseman]

Overall, foreign-born students grad are the majority in engineering by a large margin.  In 2008, there were 9290 grad students in UIUC, of them 3477 foreign-born.  In Engineering, however, there were 2313 grad students, of them, and 1363 were foreign born.  In the CS department, there were 307 grad students, and of them 260 were foreign born.  Simply put, in top school, the majority of PhD's in Engineering in the top USA schools are foreign born.  Put another way, a major import of the USA are brains.  Sounds good to me.

[ucprof]

I am in a STEM field.  When I started in a PhD program back in the 80s, at a US private univ., I was really surprised that the majority of students in my program were recruited from outside the US.  Moreover there was a perception among the faculty that the US trained students were not as good as those recruited from overseas.  I was also female in a male dominated field so I felt that I had two hills to climb - that of being female and being trained in the US.  The fact that I was _the_ top student graduating from my undergraduate program, which was one of the top in the country, seemed unimportant compared to being American.   However I did not find that I was any worse trained than my peers in the program - the foreign students were similarly trained to me and I did not have a hard time in the PhD program.  The only conclusion was that there was some discrimination against Americans.

Another issue that came up during my early career was that of the "glass ceiling" perception and some discriminatory statements made by more senior male colleagues when I was advancing in my career.  I was the first woman ever to get tenure in my department at the time I got tenure.  Virtually all of those who said inappropriate things were born in other countries and raised in a culture where women are not treated as well as in the US.  This was also a shock to me since I grew up post title IX in the US with virtually no discrimination in grade school or throughout most of college.  Suddenly I'm trying to become a prof. in a male dominated and foreign dominated field and I'm being told not to work so hard and have kids.  Or that I don't need to be paid so much because my husband has a job.  All by people from other countries. 

These are some very basic issues that I think need to be addressed if you are going to staff the vast majority of a department with people from other cultures.  My spouse, who is in the business world, is my age and was working in a classic business culture at the same time I was a postdoc and young faculty member.  I remember he was shocked at some of the things I was dealing with from senior male colleagues.  Things like that might get someone fired at the firm where he worked.  In fact someone did get fired at his company after a week of work for saying inappropriate things to women in the office. 

Now in 2009 (almost 2010) I think the culture in US universities is better for women in STEM fields than it was in the 1980s, but I think people overlook the cultural issues that can arise when you bring in many faculty from other countries.  If a department has the goal of decreasing attrition of women and of Americans from research then it would make sense to be careful to have sufficient role models and to make sure there is not a culture of discrimination against the very class of students you are trying to recruit and retain.

Recently some of the foreign born faculty in my dept have commented on the dearth of hires of people born in the US and how this might not be such a good thing for a department that has a public mission in the Univ of California.  It's interesting because we have a "Diversity" office that keeps detailed statistics on the demographics of my department and also tells us the demographics of the applicant pool.  But the one statistic that they do not give us is US born vs. foreign.  We have targets for women, hispanic, african american, etc in the department but not foreign vs. US.  In fact if one looks at the women in my department - only a quarter of the the ladder faculty females are born and raised in the US.  The rest are foreign - either from Europe or Asia.