"if states are losing more college graduates than they are holding or bringing in, they’re effectively subsidizing other states’ skilled labor forces."
Defining those subsidies could be helpful, if this refers to the in-state tuition rates, then it would be interesting to see what proportion of students are in-state. Out of all the in-state students, how many actually move out of the state afterwards? I'm pretty confident that in-state students are more likely to stay in the state than other students. On the other hand, it would be very unlikely for let's say a student who grew up in Georgia and studied at University of Michigan to stay in Michigan after graduation.
This is also unfair in the methodology: "Those who grew up in one state, went to college in another, and then moved again are counted as migrating from the state where they attended college." They were out-of-state students, so didn't get subsidized.
If there's other subsidies (than the in-state deductions) which apply to the entire student body, then the argument below is as valid:
"if the US universities are losing more college graduates than they are holding or bringing in, they’re effectively subsidizing other countries’ skilled labor forces."
However, in that case there IS some "quick, easy solution."
Anecdata: That would have solved their problem entirely for some of my friends. I can easily think of a good handful of good engineers I know from college that were disappointed to have to return to their home country when they could not find work sponsors. That's not to say that there aren't also the ones who's plan from the beginning was to return home, but for others the US had become their home.
The common story that I heart was that employers were balking at the amount of risk and paperwork required to hire foreign employees.
The UK is going rather in the other direction with this: trying as hard as possible to ensure that foreign graduates leave the country when they graduate. :(
> it would be very unlikely for let's say a student who grew up in Georgia and studied at University of Michigan to stay in Michigan after graduation.
I would say it's not all that unlikely. There's professional and personal relationships (marriage, grad school, internships, etc.) that form over 4 years that can keep the person in state.
Defining those subsidies could be helpful, if this refers to the in-state tuition rates, then it would be interesting to see what proportion of students are in-state. Out of all the in-state students, how many actually move out of the state afterwards? I'm pretty confident that in-state students are more likely to stay in the state than other students. On the other hand, it would be very unlikely for let's say a student who grew up in Georgia and studied at University of Michigan to stay in Michigan after graduation.
This is also unfair in the methodology: "Those who grew up in one state, went to college in another, and then moved again are counted as migrating from the state where they attended college." They were out-of-state students, so didn't get subsidized.
If there's other subsidies (than the in-state deductions) which apply to the entire student body, then the argument below is as valid:
"if the US universities are losing more college graduates than they are holding or bringing in, they’re effectively subsidizing other countries’ skilled labor forces."
However, in that case there IS some "quick, easy solution."