Yet, as a taxpayer who has taxes has been used for years to fund those colleges, I have a problem with this approach, because I see the focus of state colleges on immigrant students similar to a trick of an an employer with lousy work conditions bringing in strike-breakers to break a strike - in this case, immigrant students with goals other than to succeed in the work market and paying full tuition (other than reduced in-state tuition) are brought in to fill the gap created by the lagging admissions, which are lagging because college curricula are not matched with market expectations and demand.
Such import of immigrant students delays exposure, highlighting and resolution of current bad problems with the increasing decline of the market value of overpriced college education, and the 9th Circuit decision, by judges who, upon information and belief, themselves have ties to the higher education industry, did not help.
The main task of a state college (why taxpayers fund it) is to create specialists necessary for the state's economy.
Yet, colleges, funded by federal and private loans, do not care less whether their graduates do or do not find jobs.
And, as a direct result of sluggish economy and of inability of students to find jobs after they graduate - with staggering student loans - college degrees lose their attractiveness.
But not for immigrant students.
For immigrant students, a college or university degree from the United States have benefits other than a possibility to find a better job - which constitutes the ever more illusory goal of American citizen students.
Such additional benefits of a U.S. education for an immigrant student are:
1) an enhanced prestige and job prospects in the student's own country;
2) an opportunity to live in the U.S. and escape whatever bad situation the immigrant student may have had in his home country;
3) to use their education as an anchor for their "path to citizenship" in the U.S. and to bring their families inside the country
For colleges, on the other hand, immigrant students present income opportunities because:
1) such students have benefits from receiving education in the U.S. other than the prospect of a BETTER job (as compared to jobs without a college degree) for American citizen students - thus making for immigrant students attractive even such education in American colleges that has absolutely no prospect of a job in the future, simply to be able to get into the United States;
2) such immigrant students, unlike students who are residents of the state who is the "proprietor" of the State University (actually, the taxpayers are the "proprietors"), pay full tuition, and not "in-state" reduced tuition.
One big reason as to why the States were clamoring with the 9th Circuit for their alleged "right" to import students is because they could not attract enough Americans to pay their tuition - because their education, in the eyes of the taxpaying public, is not worth much.
Now, states, and state universities, received a boon from the 9th Circuit allowing the states to import even more immigrant students, paying full tuition for the right to be in the country for several years, and to forge their "path to citizenship" and bring their families in.
Because of this decision, state universities will obviously import more immigrant students, paying full tuition and looking to use the education as an anchor to get themselves and their families into this country, rather than to get a job with that same education.
For that reason, States colleges, still funded MAINLY by taxpayer money, notwithstanding tuition from immigrants - have even less incentive to put together education curriculum that would give their graduates a good chance to get a job.
The remedy for that would be that:
- the state colleges get strict budgets;
- the state colleges are required to finance student education through loans or grants from their budgets only, without any federal or private financing;
- introduce strict accountability of college officials for student defaults on loans because of bad grades or because of inability to find a job;
- to introduced assessment panels of state college performance by independent taxpayer panels, having authority to fire non-performing college officials.
- rigorously vet the incoming student body:
- through oral and written (essay, not multiple choice) entrance exams on many subjects;
- by requiring their faculty to put together curriculums for courses that would produce graduates whose knowledge and training would be in demand in the current employment market;
- to rigorously vet its faculty, specifically:
- to cancel tenure of faculty, indicating that teaching at the state college at taxpayers' expense is not a lifelong sabbatical, as many professors treat it, but a hard job meant to produce specialists in demand by the state's economy;
- to hire faculty who can deliver curriculums that would produce specialists in demand by the market;
- to rigorously vet its curriculum on the basis of true employment rate of their students:
- by having the curriculum;
- the majors;
- the faculty performance frequently assessed by independent taxpayer panels.